Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Too often, the question of the meaning of the Bible and the meaning of
    the inspiration of the Bible is discussed in negative terms.  So rather
    than discuss it from the perspective of why I donn't believe in the
    inerrancy of the Bible, or why I don't believe the Bible is a cohensive
    whole, I would like to start a discussion of how wonderful it is to
    have such a diverse collection of material!
    
    How wonderful that since the beginning, there was room in Christianity
    for multiple Christian Perspectives.
    
    How that in finding the common themes in all these diverse perspectives
    we are enriched.
    
    How in reading about the human lifes of a diverse group of
    extraordinary people, we learn about their great faith sometimes in
    spite of their human nerdiness.  (I think of Paul who I do love as an
    example.)
    
    So what is it about the Bible that makes you love the book?
    
                                            Patricia
                                         

    
    I love the fact that God has chosen to reveal Himself to us through a
    book.  Not only do I enjoy reading and therefore particularly like God
    speaking to me in this way, but written text is comforting to the
    student in that it can be referred to as often as desired without worry
    that it will change.
    
    In terms of the characterizations of the content of the books which 
    make up the Bible, that is, history, poetry, music, proverbs, allegory and 
    so on, of course, I love them all.
    
    The depth of God's Word is unfathomable and frankly intoxicating as God
    leads one into its riches.  This remains true even as God reveals
    through the Bible my ugliest qualities. 
    
    jeff

    I love and cherish God's Holy Word.  It is my owner's manual for life
    and has promoted various healings from damaged relationships to my
    former thorn in the flesh.  He speaks to me and ministers to me as I
    spend time reading His Words to us.  Everyday is a new discovery of the
    depth of His Word's riches.
    
    Incidentally, I used to wonder why Jesus Christ was never considered
    defiled by touching lepers when He healed them.  Our Hebrew friends
    state that the Torah was so holy that it could not be defiled.  Even if
    a leper touched it, it wouldn't be defiled.  A scroll would only be
    rendered unusable when it was old and faded or ripped.  Then they would
    give it a burial and funeral as they were burying a friend.
    
    Jesus Christ is the Living Word (i.e., Torah)!
    
    Mike

i looked at the NT again recently. it contains the four gospels, many 
letters which give practical advice on faith and then the revelation.

i see the need for the four accounts of the life of christ. i can also 
rationalise a need for some vision concerning the future (all in the context
of a christian faith).

but the many letters must have been enormously practical for their recipients 
in early days. why were they discontinued? i can definitely see an on-going
benefit of such letters to be written by outstanding members from the faith
community.

this question is serious. it only occured to me recently, whilst discussing 
the bible with my sister and her flat mate (both born again christians). 
why isn't the NT updated/extended periodically? 



andreas.

    Andreas,
    
    the only reason I can see for not opening up scripture is the belief
    that anything that was ever for all time important for God to say to
    humankind was already said.  I think that is the position that
    fundementalist Christians would take.
    
    Unitarian Universalists use all Religious documents, Christian,
    Bhudhist, Islamic, Native American, as sources of inspiration.  UU's
    also use modern literature, poetry, etc as sources of inspiration.
    
    The Catholic Church uses tradition and papal authority.
    
    I don't know how the mainline protestant Churches answer that question. 
    I think the question is a wonderful challenge to Mainline Churches.  Do
    they really believe that God reveals himself/herself to us throughout
    history and how and where do they capture the revelation from after the
    time of the final canonization of the Bible.
    
    There has been a whole lot that has happened in the last 1600 years. 
    What is our record of God's role in Modern History?

    	"sources of inspiration" are not authoratative teaching.
    
    	All religions that I know of use the same sources you list
    	(and more) for sources of inspiration.

    Joe,
    
    It is my faith that allows me to deal with the lack of absolute
    authority.  since I do not believe that anything human is perfect, then
    I donot believe anything human can be absolutely authoritative.
    
    I truly believe that a need for signs of absolute authority shows a lack of 
    faith.
    
    Now if you believe Mark, you know that Jesus refused to give any such
    sign.  On the otherhand, if you have faith in Matthew or Luke, you know
    that Jesus refused to give any sign, except the sign of Jonah.
    
    Take your pick.
    
                               Patricia

>but the many letters must have been enormously practical for their recipients 
>in early days. why were they discontinued? i can definitely see an on-going
>benefit of such letters to be written by outstanding members from the faith
>community.
    
    The work has been done and the canon of scripture is closed.  If you
    wish, I can provide the BCV where God states this Himself and why.
    
    >why isn't the NT updated/extended periodically? 
    
    Same answer as above.  BTW - some cults have tried to introduce another 
    "new" testament (i.e., Mormons) rather than extend the existing one.
    
    Mike

>    
>    The Catholic Church uses tradition and papal authority.
>    

Don't misunderstand this.  The primary source of authority in the Roman
Catholic Church is the Bible.  It is interpreted in the light of tradition
and the authority of the successors of the Apostles under the leadership
of the Petrine office.

The Roman Catholic Church is the most biblically based of all churches.

    Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or
    sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it
    follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as
    teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God
    wanted put into the sacred writings [5] for the sake of our
    salvation.  Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has
    its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation
    of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who
    belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every
    kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

						--- Dei Verbum 11, Vatican II
[5] Cf. St. Augustine, GEN. AD LITT. 2, 9, 20: PL 34, 270-271;
Epistle 82,3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34,2, p. 354; St. Thomas, "On
Truth", Q.12, A.2, C; Council of Trent, session IV, SCRIPTURAL
CANONS: Denzinger 783 (1501); Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS: EB 121, 124; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter
DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU: EB 539.

    >The Roman Catholic Church is the most biblically based of all churches.
    
    you forgot, "imho."
    
    glad to help,
    Mike

    
    The Catholic Church is certainly not the most biblical, John.  But it
    is more biblical than the UU, that's for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
    Actually, there's nothing truly biblical about the UU so the comparison 
    above is highly understated.
    
    Due to the Catholic emphasis on tradition and papal authority, it can't
    help but be less biblical than it could be.  It is clear that many of
    the "traditions" of the Jews during Jesus's life were a stumbling block to 
    their understanding of God's Law and the Prophets.  So it is today with
    the Catholic Church.
    
    jeff
    
    

re Note 1093.11 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     Due to the Catholic emphasis on tradition and papal authority, it can't
>     help but be less biblical than it could be.  It is clear that many of
>     the "traditions" of the Jews during Jesus's life were a stumbling block to 
>     their understanding of God's Law and the Prophets.  So it is today with
>     the Catholic Church.
  
        I have always felt that *if* God intended our faith to be
        based upon assent to propositional truth, then it would be
        inadequate "merely" to have an infallible book, as the wide
        divergence of doctrines of those who base their doctrine on
        the text of the Bible alone surely attests.  *If*
        propositional truth is essential to faith, then there must be
        a God-ordained living teaching presence in the world to do
        the interpretation and application.

        Certainly the Protestants will respond "there is a living
        teaching presence in the world -- the Holy Spirit", then my
        response is that you are in the same boat as those whom you
        most criticize, the ones who say that God directly is the
        teacher of truth, and you follow a teacher whose proof of
        identity is entirely personal to you and to whose identity
        others will agree only if they already agree with you.

        Of course, I am quite certain that faith is not based upon
        propositional truth, and that the truth of which the prophets
        and Jesus spoke is quite a different thing from secular
        notions of truth.

        Bob

    The amazing thing is that before the Babylonian exile, the Israelites
    ignored the Hebrew scriptures and as in the times of the Judges, did
    what was right in their own eyes.  This is why they were put into
    exile.  It was a judgement by God and the sad thing is it was so
    avoidable.  God's own plea in Isaiah chapter 1, "Come let us reason
    together saith the Lord, thou your sins be as scarlet they shall be
    white as snow.  Though they be as crimson they shall become as wool.
    Paul also understood the difference between holiness and the human
    condition.  Some see this as Paul not having a healthy view of things. 
    On the contrary, Paul was a man of great forsight and self control.
    
    Anyway, in the book of Ezra...some 80 years after the beginning of the
    exile, King Cyrus gave permission for Ezra to return to the desolated
    Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.  At one point, Ezra stands on a
    podium before the nation of Israel...exiled individuals and Ezra opens
    the book of the Law.  The whole congregation stands....stands with
    great anticipation and Ezra reads to them the whole book of the law. 
    They follow by confessing their sin...similar to what Daniel did in the
    upper chamber. 
    
    The Israelites were deeply into spiritual hunger...and demonstrated
    this by their reaction to the book of the Law.  The book of the Law was
    considered to be God breathed by a nation of exiled nomads.  I believe
    it also...if anything by their testimony alone!
    
    -Jack 

>this question is serious. it only occured to me recently, whilst discussing 
>the bible with my sister and her flat mate (both born again christians). 
>why isn't the NT updated/extended periodically? 

    Hi Andreas,
    
    This is the definitive answer to your question; all of the authors of
    the books of the New Testament were witnesses to Jesus's life.  It's
    that simple.  There are other criteria for their selection, of course.
    The fact that the authors were alive during Jesus's lifetime on Earth
    provides the credibility and authority of their testimonies.
    
    jeff

>        I have always felt that *if* God intended our faith to be
>        based upon assent to propositional truth, then it would be
>        inadequate "merely" to have an infallible book, as the wide
>        divergence of doctrines of those who base their doctrine on
>        the text of the Bible alone surely attests.  
    
    Like I said before, much of the denominational confusion can be
    attributed to ignoring the roots/trunk of the tree of which 
    Christianity is but a limb.  Some churches have gone beyond ignorance
    to a point of persecuting the roots of their own tree.
    
    Mike

    
>    This is the definitive answer to your question; all of the authors of
>    the books of the New Testament were witnesses to Jesus's life.  It's
>    that simple.  There are other criteria for their selection, of course.
>    The fact that the authors were alive during Jesus's lifetime on Earth
>    provides the credibility and authority of their testimonies.
    
>    jeff
    
    
    The author of most of the books of the New Testament are unknown. 
    Seven or Eight Epistles are widely accepted as being authored by Paul,
    who lived during the time of Jesus but was not a witness to any part of
    his life.  Paul's letters are the first written of the New Testament
    books.  They were written around 50-60.  All the other books were
    written latter, 70, 80, 90 for most and into the second century for
    some such as Timothy and Titus.
    
    It is probable that none of the authors were witnesses to the Historic
    Jesus. 
    
    I don't think any recognized source, conservative or liberal would
    agree that all the authors were living during Jesus' lifetime and
    actual witnesses to Jesus' life on earth.

    I have never been a Catholic, but I tolerate catholic bashing no more
    than any other bigotry.
    
    The Catholic Church has a mechanism to allow that God's continuous
    revelation remains part of the Faith.
    
    Those insisting on the absolute authority and only the authority of the
    scripture have no means of providing Faith based answers to new
    questions.
    
    Woman Church, which is the name used by feminist theologians to define
    the faith community of feminists, use the community as a whole as a
    means of "testing" the validity of individual inspiration. 

    
    > The work has been done and the canon of scripture is closed.  If you
    > wish, I can provide the BCV where God states this Himself and why.

    Yes. Please post this. Your point seems to be that God himself
    enumerated the books of the bible and declared that nothing evermore to
    be written would be breathed by him. 

    > Same answer as above.  BTW - some cults have tried to introduce another
    > "new" testament (i.e., Mormons) rather than extend the existing one.
      
    The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints seems no more a cult
    than the Assembly of God. 

    Mormons consider the "Book of Mormon" as an additional biblical
    text, not a replacement for the new testament. I'm not sure this was
    made clear in your reply.

    
    
>    The author of most of the books of the New Testament are unknown. 
    
    Absurd.
    
    Book	Relationship		Date
    
    Matthew	Jesus's disciple	Before 70 AD
    Mark	Attendant to Peter	65-70 AD
    Luke	Friend of Paul,		Prior to 62 AD
    		writings require eyewitness accounts
    John	Jesus's disciple	80-90 AD
    Acts	Luke authored		62 AD
    Romans	Paul, alive during	53-58 AD
    		Jesus's ministry.
    I Corinthians	Paul		55 AD
    II Corinthians	Paul		57 AD
    Galatians		Paul		53 AD
    Ephesians		Paul		About 63 AD
    Philippians		Paul		About 63 AD
    Colossians		Paul		About 63 AD
    Thessalonians	Paul		50 AD
    I Timothy		Paul		61-63 AD
    II Timothy		Paul		61-63 AD
    Titus		Paul		Prior to 65 AD
    Hebrews		Paul or Philo		Before AD 68 most likely
    James		James, Jesus' brother  	mid 40s or early 60s AD
    I,II,Peter		Jesus' disciple		66 AD or earlier
    I,II,III John	Jesus' disciple About 	90 AD
    Jude		Jesus' brother		50-100 AD
    Revelation		John, Jesus' disciple	70-95 AD
    
>    Seven or Eight Epistles are widely accepted as being authored by Paul,
>    who lived during the time of Jesus but was not a witness to any part of
>    his life. 
    
    This is irrational.  Paul was at the stoning of Stephen.  Paul
    persecuted the new Christian church immediately.  Paul certainly
    witnessed a great part of Jesus' life, if indirectly.  Paul also claims
    special revelation and was accepted by the other Apostles as
    authentic.
    
    > Paul's letters are the first written of the New Testament
    >books.  They were written around 50-60.  All the other books were
    >written latter, 70, 80, 90 for most and into the second century for
    >some such as Timothy and Titus.
    
    See above.
    
    >It is probable that none of the authors were witnesses to the Historic
    >Jesus. 
    
    Absurd.  John, Mark, Peter, James, Jude...
    
   > I don't think any recognized source, conservative or liberal would
   > agree that all the authors were living during Jesus' lifetime and
   > actual witnesses to Jesus' life on earth.
    
    Well, one only has to analyze the dates above to see that it is not
    problematic in any way to suggest that the authors were living during
    Jesus' lifetime.  It would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise actually.
    
    jeff

     re .11 et al.

    "I'm closer to God."
    "No, I am."
    "No sir, I am."
    "Oh yeah, well *I* know what God's will really is."
    "No you don't; I do."

    Ahh... the pecking order of righteousness is established. Let me know
    who wins.          

    > Same answer as above.  BTW - some cults have tried to introduce another
    > "new" testament (i.e., Mormons) rather than extend the existing one.
      
>    The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints seems no more a cult
>    than the Assembly of God. 

    You obviously don't know the difference.  The Assemblies of God do not
    augment the Bible in any way such as the Mormon's do.
    
    >Mormons consider the "Book of Mormon" as an additional biblical
    >text, not a replacement for the new testament. I'm not sure this was
    >made clear in your reply.
    
    It matters not.  The distinction remains.  
    
    jeff

    Most Scholars do not believe the Gospels were written by the disciples
    of Jesus.  further Most Scholars do not agree that more than 7 or 8
    of the Epistles were written by Paul.  Likewise the disciples most
    likely did not write Peter, James, etc.
    
    Since it supports the Faith assumption that the Bible is inerrant, many
    who believe that the Bible is innerant, refuse to consider biblical
    scholarship and insist of eye witnesses authorship.  The evidence just
    does not support that conclusion.

    
    > You obviously don't know the difference.  The Assemblies of God do not
    > augment the Bible in any way such as the Mormon's do.

    Look, I wasn't saying that the Mormon church and the Assemblies of
    God believe the same things. I was just saying that having a
    broader scripture set doesn't make them a cult any more than
    having an amazingly narrow, literal, unerring vision of the KJV
    bible makes certain fundamentalist churches cults.

    > It matters not.  The distinction remains.

    Details in accusations and labeling seldom matter to some people. I
    was trying to clarify the distinction which I felt was a little
    ambiguous or unclear.
    
    
    Eric

>    The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints seems no more a cult
>    than the Assembly of God. 
    
    Not true.  AG is a mainline Christian denomination.  LDS doesn't share
    any of the doctrines of Christianity.

>    Mormons consider the "Book of Mormon" as an additional biblical
>    text, not a replacement for the new testament. I'm not sure this was
>    made clear in your reply.
    
    Not true.  They don't even consider the Bible to be 100% inspired.  The
    Big 3: Book Of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine of Covenants; are
    all considered to be of higher inspiration and authority than the
    Bible.
    
    Mike

I Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

I Corinthians 15:4
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures:

I Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

I Corinthians 15:6
After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once: of whom the
greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

I Corinthians 15:7
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

I Corinthians 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

>    Most Scholars do not believe the Gospels were written by the disciples
>    of Jesus.  further Most Scholars do not agree that more than 7 or 8
    
    You say this often, but never tell us who these infamous "scholars"
    are.  One has to wonder if they were in the least bit credible, this
    forum wouldn't be the first we've heard of them.
    
    Mike

>    > The work has been done and the canon of scripture is closed.  If you
>    > wish, I can provide the BCV where God states this Himself and why.
>
>    Yes. Please post this. Your point seems to be that God himself
>    enumerated the books of the bible and declared that nothing evermore to
>    be written would be breathed by him. 
    
Ephesians 3:3-5
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in
few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
    
    Paul makes it clear here that there will not be any new revelations
    from God to modify the one and only true Gospel.  
    
Hebrews 1:1-2
GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir
of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    The Greek is very clear here in verse 2 "has spoken to us ONCE AND FOR
    ALL by His Son."  
    
    Mike

re Note 1093.27 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

> Ephesians 3:3-5
> How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in
> few words,
> Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
> Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
> revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
>     
>     Paul makes it clear here that there will not be any new revelations
>     from God to modify the one and only true Gospel.  
  
        You must read a different language than English -- I don't AT
        ALL get your conclusion from the Scripture you quote.

        (The "imputed infallibility" of the reader is especially
        dangerous when the reader is interpreting things that aren't
        even in the text!)

          
> Hebrews 1:1-2
> GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
> fathers by the prophets,
> Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir
> of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
> 
>     The Greek is very clear here in verse 2 "has spoken to us ONCE AND FOR
>     ALL by His Son."  

        But this supports my belief (and what I believe is
        essentially Patricia's) that the revelation is the PERSON of
        Christ himself and NOT the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
        or Paul (or even the words of Christ, but Christ's person,
        Christ's life, Christ's coming and death!).

        The truth of God is not truth as the world knows truth -- it
        is not just the best, correct text, but it is a different
        sort of thing than what the world calls truth (the natural,
        secular mind never calls a person "the truth").

        If you truly believe that Christ is alive, then that "ONCE
        AND FOR ALL" mentioned above CONTINUES TO THIS DAY AND FOR
        EVER.  	It is most emphatically NOT something that ended in
        the first century (any more than Christ has been dead since
        then).

        Bob

    Re: .22 (Patricia) in response to .19 (Jeff)
    
    Be careful, Patricia. I am sure that Jeff can *prove* his assertions.
    
    Logically, of course!.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    My understanding of Mormonism was that Joseph Smith started Mormonism
    as a joke...and then it continued.  Yet even after this has been
    revealed, Mormons still cleave to the doctrines...that were started as
    a joke.  How's that for rational logic?
    
    -Jack

        re .24

    > Not true.  AG is a mainline Christian denomination.  LDS doesn't share
    > any of the doctrines of Christianity. 

    I now understand what you meant by "cult." A cult is anything that does
    not pass the Heiser Christianity Test. Also the AG is not what I think
    of when I think of mainline Christian denominations.

    > Not true.  They don't even consider the Bible to be 100% inspired.  The
    > Big 3: Book Of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine of Covenants; are
    > all considered to be of higher inspiration and authority than the
    > Bible. 

    This was not my experience. 

    	Eric 

    
    re .30

    Did you hear the one about how the apostles staged the "resurrection?"
    Yet even after this has been revealed, Christians still cleave to the
    doctrine...that were started as a ruse.  How's that for rational
    logic?

    If you have any first source references, I'd love to review them myself
    so that I might change my opinion that this is simply Mormon bashing.

    	Eric
    

    re .28
    
    ditto

   Z  Did you hear the one about how the apostles staged the "resurrection?"
   Z  Yet even after this has been revealed, Christians still cleave to the
   Z  doctrine...that were started as a ruse.  How's that for rational logic?
    
    I didn't accept the resurrection lightly.  Evidence that Demands a
    Verdict...excellent book on apologetics.  Speaks on the Roman Seal on
    the tomb and the virtual impossibility of human interference regarding
    the body of Jesus and the removal from the tomb.  Good stuff.
    
    Two good books on Mormonism and how it was started as a joke.  "No One
    Knows My History" The story of Joseph Smith by Fawn Brodie.  Another
    book written by a man named Ropp called "The Mormon Documents".  I am
    going to try and get hold of some other documents and snail mail them
    to you next week.  
    
    -Jack
    

    
    Thanks for the pointers
    
    Eric

>    I now understand what you meant by "cult." A cult is anything that does
>    not pass the Heiser Christianity Test. Also the AG is not what I think
>    of when I think of mainline Christian denominations.
    
    No a cult typically adheres to these guidelines:
    
    1. Attributes of God - usually humanize God
    2. Person of Christ - usually strip His deity
    3. Nature of Man - usually deify man
    4. Requirements of Atonement - usually minimize sin
    5. Source of Revelation - usually ostracize the Scriptures
    
    AG doesn't do this and I have their tenets of faith online if you wish
    to read them (I'm a former AG member).  They subscribe to all the basic
    fundamental doctrines that unite Protestants everywhere (i.e., the
    above 5 doctrines).  Mormonism doesn't share this common ground on any
    of the above 5 doctrines.
    
>    This was not my experience. 

    Eric, the Mormons I have for friends, the ones I work with, and the ones 
    who visit my door all disagree with you.  If you want more info, just
    ask.
    
    Mike

>        You must read a different language than English -- I don't AT
>        ALL get your conclusion from the Scripture you quote.

    Bob, the key for Ephesians 3 is the phrase "Which in other ages was not
    made known..."  This phrase excludes past and future generations in
    both English and in the Greek.  This immediately eliminates all the 
    cults born after the first century and especially all the ones born in
    the 1800's that have their own "new" gospel.

>        But this supports my belief (and what I believe is
>        essentially Patricia's) that the revelation is the PERSON of
>        Christ himself and NOT the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
>        or Paul (or even the words of Christ, but Christ's person,
>        Christ's life, Christ's coming and death!).
    
    Okay then, but how do you get to know the PERSON of Christ?  He told us
    to follow Him and heed His words.  But even then that's not enough. 
    How do you get to personally know the Person of Christ on the most
    intimate level?  Revelation 3:20 holds the answer.

>        If you truly believe that Christ is alive, then that "ONCE
>        AND FOR ALL" mentioned above CONTINUES TO THIS DAY AND FOR
>        EVER.  	It is most emphatically NOT something that ended in
>        the first century (any more than Christ has been dead since
>        then).

    Bob, you're assuming that God didn't say His Word is Alive (which
    He did).  You are also neglecting the testimony of Christ (Revelation
    19:10).
    
    Mike

>    My understanding of Mormonism was that Joseph Smith started Mormonism
>    as a joke...and then it continued.  Yet even after this has been
>    revealed, Mormons still cleave to the doctrines...that were started as
>    a joke.  How's that for rational logic?
    
    I've also read that the BoM is based on a 1620 novel by Nathan Smith
    called "A View of the Hebrews."  Regardless, the foundation of God's
    Word is all that is needed to show that it's not of God.
    
    Mike

>    Did you hear the one about how the apostles staged the "resurrection?"
>    Yet even after this has been revealed, Christians still cleave to the
>    doctrine...that were started as a ruse.  How's that for rational
>    logic?
    
    There are several attempts to rationalize away the fact of the
    resurrection (btw - I second Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a
    Verdict."  Both volumes are excellent).  Some are laughable, a couple
    require some familiarity of the history of the events.  The bottomline
    on this one is that the disciples couldn't have staged anything for
    many reasons:
    
    - they were on the run and/or in hiding out of fear for their own lives.
    - a Roman guard consists of 16 Legionnaires commanded by 1 Centurion. 
      Peter tried to kill the Christ's arresting soldier, and had such
      great swordsmanship he cut off his ear.  There's no way the 11
      disciples could've overcome 17 of the premier fighting machines of that
      era.
    - breaking Caesar's royal seal was punishable by death.
    - a Roman soldier falling asleep on duty was punishable by death.  Thus
      their concern in running to the Sanhedrin for protection and an
      alibi.  The excuse that the disciples stole His body is the oldest
      excuse of them all and was initiated by the Sanhedrin in Matthew
      28:13.
    
    Mike

re Note 1093.37 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

> >        You must read a different language than English -- I don't AT
> >        ALL get your conclusion from the Scripture you quote.
> 
>     Bob, the key for Ephesians 3 is the phrase "Which in other ages was not
>     made known..."  This phrase excludes past and future generations in
>     both English and in the Greek.  

        That phrase, in English, specifically DOES NOT exclude future
        events (unless, I suppose, your theology requires it).


>     Okay then, but how do you get to know the PERSON of Christ?  He told us
>     to follow Him and heed His words.  But even then that's not enough. 
>     How do you get to personally know the Person of Christ on the most
>     intimate level?  Revelation 3:20 holds the answer.

        Yes, Revelation 3:20 *is* the answer.  ("Behold, I stand at
        the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the
        door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
        with me.")  It is not a text, it is living in the presence of
        the Lord (unless, I suppose, your theology requires something
        else).

        Bob

    
    Your definition of a cult is so far from what is used in normal
    conversation as to make a discussion of cultism an exercise in the
    absurd. It absolutely supports my realization that to you a cult
    is anything that does not pass the Heiser Christianity Test.


    Here are just two examples from Mormons in the MORMONISM conference
    regarding their views of the Bible.

    ------------
	The Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible, but enhances and fills 
	it out.  A person can NOT say that all they need is the Book of 
	Mormon.  That is absolutely not true.  To understand God's relationship
	with mankind on this earth, one must realize that the House of Israel 
	is the covenant people of that God.  No matter how hated or despised 
	the Jews have been, are, or will be is of no consequence.  (This 
	particular aspect of these people has been prophesied more than once 
	in the Bible.)  The Jews were and still are part of the covenant 
	people of God.  All that the Book of Mormon is about is of part of 
	that covenant people who were directed away from the impending and 
	prophesied disasters that were about to befall them.  A companion.  
	Not a displacer.
	
	Charles

    ---------
    
    1) The LDS church believes that, when originally penned by its various
    authors, the books of the Bible contained the word of God. 
    
    2) The LDS church also believes that there have been some errors in
    translation and transcription that have cropped up over the years,
    introducing changes to the original intent in some cases. 
    
    3) In spite of this, the LDS church still believes that the Bible does
    contain the word of God, is mostly correct, and that the translation
    and transcription problems have contributed to the confusion over many
    basic doctrines among Christian sects, such as baptism, salvation,
    authority, and others. 
    
    4) The LDS church believes that one reason God has given the Book of
    Mormon is to help clarify many of these doctrines, by providing
    additional insight and clarity.
    
    5) From my experience, I think the LDS church follows the teachings
    found in the Bible more closely than any other church, in spite of the
    aforementioned translation and transcription problems. 
                
    Rich

    ----------

    All you can say is that their view of the bible is different than
    yours. Their views on the nature of the Bible are no so far off from
    that of non-fundamentalist mainline Christians. I make no attempt to
    understand, rationalize, believe or support their faith in the other
    books in their scripture set.

	Eric

>    Your definition of a cult is so far from what is used in normal
>    conversation as to make a discussion of cultism an exercise in the
>    absurd. It absolutely supports my realization that to you a cult
>    is anything that does not pass the Heiser Christianity Test.
    
    Only absurd if you consider God's Word to be absurd.  Those are the
    fundamental doctrines as outlined by the Bible.  You can give me credit
    all you wish, but it was God's idea first.

>    Here are just two examples from Mormons in the MORMONISM conference
>    regarding their views of the Bible.
    
"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on
earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by
abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." - Joseph Smith, Documentary
History of the Church, vol. IV, p. 461
    
    Charles Roney is not a reflection of the LDS church nor the Reformed
    LDS church.  The many Mormons I personally know claim that the Bible is
    only on the same level as the BoM, D&C, and PoGP as long as it is
    "translated correctly."  Since they neither present its mistakes or
    re-translate it to suit their theology, the Bible is given at least 4th 
    class status.  Any honest Mormon will tell you that.  Generally, any of
    Joseph Smith's writings are given higher authority, as is typical with
    the prophet(s) of any cult.
    
    Mike

>        That phrase, in English, specifically DOES NOT exclude future
>        events (unless, I suppose, your theology requires it).
    
    It doesn't include them in English either.  The Word of God is to be
    taken literally except where the Holy Spirit tells you not to within
    the text.  It's not difficult to verify the intention of the original
    language.

>        Yes, Revelation 3:20 *is* the answer.  ("Behold, I stand at
>        the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the
>        door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
>        with me.")  It is not a text, it is living in the presence of
>        the Lord (unless, I suppose, your theology requires something
>        else).

    And living in the presence of the Lord is a relationship that needs to
    be fed, just like any other relationship, in order for it to grow. 
    Heeding Christ's Word is one way, another is prayer.  It's a living,
    breathing, active 1-on-1 relationship He brings.
    
    Mike

    The conference for the discussion of the Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter-Day Saints (the LDS or the Mormons) or related topics is the
    MORMONISM conference.
    
    You may at it to your notebook by typing
    
    	ADD ENTRY TECRUS::MORMONISM<return>
    
    at the Notes prompt or press KP7.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Also see topic 226, "The Cult Note."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.30 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    revealed, Mormons still cleave to the doctrines...that were started as
    a joke.  How's that for rational logic?

Jack, from my viewpoint this pretty much sums up all religions. As you know, 
I am mostly in this conference to try to understand why you believe as you 
do despite the lack of collaborating evidence. What I've come to realize is
that you have incorporated a belief system that is so deeply ingrained that 
logic has nothing to do with it, when presented with contradictions you will
either ignore them or engage in logical contortions so complex as to leave me
in awe. The reaction of the Mormons in this regard are exactly what I would
expect. 

Steve

P.S. The 'you' in the above paragraph was meant to be inclusive, I wasn't 
speaking to you directly...

    Paul did a great job in I Corinthians of writing himself into the group
    of witnesses to the resurrection!
    
    Paul's experience of the risen Christ however was a long time after the
    Easter witness!
    
    It is in Galatians where Paul is giving autobiographical data that he
    tells that he was not known by site by the disciples and had only
    visited Jerusalem once to visit Peter.
    
    Paul clearly identifies himself as not a witness to the historic Jesus.
    
    He does proclaim for himself several different direct later revelations
    of Jesus and of God.

    Paul was an "Apostle of out Season".  Paul met the true Jesus on the
    Road to Damascus...and was given direct revelation from the same Jesus
    that fellowshipped with the Apostles.
    
    -Jack
    

    Paul's understanding of Jesus is very different than Matthew, Mark's or
    Lukes.
    
    Interestingly some think Paul and John are very complimentary.  Others
    think they are radically different.  I personally have a lot of respect
    for Paul's theological reflection, while I have difficulty with John's.
    
    I guess I am able to overlook the worst of Paul and forgive him for
    that.  I do have more difficulty overlooking the worst of John.  The
    worst of Paul is his sexism and his discomfort with human sexuality. 
    The worst of John is his exclusiveness and comdemnation of those
    outside his fold.
    
    My view toward John is not logically consistent.

  ZZ      The worst of John is his exclusiveness and comdemnation of those
  ZZ      outside his fold.
    
    Why would you have a problem with John?  Consider that John is only the
    messenger boy here.  John adequately records some of the claims of
    Jesus.  Would you take it to mean that John made up these
    claims?...i.e. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life.  No
    one comes unto the father but by me, etc.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Of the four Gospels, guess which one is regarded as being least likely
    to have the authentic words of Jesus?
    
    Note, that I'm not making a value judgement when I say that.  Just
    quoting historic research.
    
    John, like Paul is discussing an otherwordly Christ where the synoptic
    Gospels are telling the story of the Historic Jesus.
    
    

    re .26

    >> Most Scholars do not believe the Gospels were written by the
    >> disciples of Jesus.  further Most Scholars do not agree that more
    >> than 7 or 8

    > You say this often, but never tell us who these infamous "scholars"
    > are.  One has to wonder if they were in the least bit credible, this
    > forum wouldn't be the first we've heard of them.


    The editorial notes in my Roman Catholic issue Bible *The New American
    Bible* agree with Patricia's comments, above. The list of scholars is
    over a page long and I don't feel like typing in the names. The
    introduction was written by Pope Paul VI. They conclude that the
    Gospels were not written by the apostles. They say that "most scholars
    are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the
    vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the
    theological expressions found [in the Pastoral Epistles.]" So at least
    some of the "infamous scholars" are the representatives of the Roman
    Catholic church.

    I in no way expect to change anyone's mind, I merely want to lend
    support for Patricia's claims. 

    Eric

    Eric,
    
    Thank you.  What I am citing is the work of the most common textbooks
    on the New Testament.  The better texts provide background from a
    variety of perpectives on the books, authors, issues, vocabulary etc. 
    Paul is the only authoritatively discernable author of New Testament
    Books and then just Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galations, Philemon,
    Philipians and 1 Thessaloneans.  That is only seven.  I remember the
    number eight.  I do know that most scholars do not attribute Timothy
    and Titus to Paul.  I agree with the authors that do not attribute
    Colloseans or Ephesians to Paul although I find Ephesians to be a truly
    inspiring work.  Ephesians is thought to accurately reflect Paul's
    Theology without actually being written by Paul.  Some scholars do
    attribute these two works to Paul.
    
    I think it critical to have an accurate understanding of what the bible
    is, to know as much as possible about the time and circumstances of the
    individual books.  Real meaning can be found in the similarities
    amidst  diversity.
    
    I believe that trying to blend the works into a unified whole destroys
    the real meaning to be found in scripture. 

    Okay, let's assume this is the case.  Does this mean that they are
    forgeries?  Does this mean that the ghost writers of these books have
    less authority or inspiration from God than do the actual writers we
    know today???  Or is it that some parts of the books count and the
    others don't?  And by what litmus test do we determine what is valid
    and what isn't? 
    
    We can't go by our own senses or feelings because our feelings are
    molding by our own personal experiences and therefore would not come to
    any harmonious conclusion.  Furthermore, our judgements of what is
    right and wrong are based on the mores of our own society.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    It means that we have the inspiration of many different men.
    
    It means that we have inspiration recorded over 100 years for NT
    history and another 500-1000 years for OT history.
    
    It means that we can trace the evolution of Theological ideas over that
    period.
    
    It means that we can analyze say Corinthians, Ephesians, and Timothy
    and get thought from three authors of the Pauline school and trace
    development through those three authors.
    
    We can also analyze the difference in the thought and style based on
    what we know of the history of the time each book was written and see
    the impact of culture on religion and religion on culture.
    
    It means that we can appreciate the great diversity of theological
    reflection.
    
    It means that we can see first hand evidence of the theological insight
    of each of the Gospel writers and how that theological insight shapes
    the telling of the Gospel.
    
    It means that through all the multiple experiences of all these authors
    within the early Christian communities we can glimpse the impact that
    Jesus and early Christianity had on them and thereby glimpse the
    character of Jesus of Nazareth.
    
    What it does not allow us to do is to capture the absolute character of
    God or of Jesus Christ.  It does not allow us to see directly or
    totally, the holy.  The scripture potrays the radical otherness of God,
    only pointing humanity toward a partial revelation.  It does not
    provide adequate certainty for those who want to capture and control
    the exact nature of Deity.  It is very discomforting for those who need
    absolutes.

    
    I can find more Bibles (than the Catholic issue) which say just the
    opposite.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Do that.  Which Bibles identify Timothy and Titus as being written by
    Paul.  And what is the date of the edition.
    
                                     Patricia

re Note 1093.56 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     I can find more Bibles (than the Catholic issue) which say just the
>     opposite.
  
        Certainly -- and at least one reason for that is that
        fundamentalists and evangelicals have a need to believe such
        a position -- because of its different understanding of
        revelation, the RC Church does not have that need (to
        understand the identities of the human authors of the
        Biblical books in the traditional way).

        In a very recent note (1093.54), Jack Martin, wrote "We can't
        go by our own senses or feelings because our feelings are
        molding by our own personal experiences and therefore would
        not come to any harmonious conclusion."  This applies as
        much, and perhaps more so (due to group dynamics), to
        organizations including schools of theology and denominations
        -- every reason for why an individual can't know the truth
        with certainty applies to churches as well.

        Bob

    ZZ        -- every reason for why an individual can't know the truth
    ZZ        with certainty applies to churches as well.
    
    Since faith isn't a concrete, you can only go by what you BELIEVE to be
    the truth.  Yet, you can also be assured in your heart that it is the
    truth.  I don't see a problem with this.
    
    If you are a mid trib and I'm a pretrib., there is nothing insensitive
    or exclusionary you you saying, "Jack, you are wrong on this." 
    
    -Jack

>    I believe that trying to blend the works into a unified whole destroys
>    the real meaning to be found in scripture. 
    
    the opposite has proven its harm.  Treating the Bible as anything but
    an intergrated message system produced via supernatural engineering
    leads to denominational division and birth of cults.  Millions have
    been murdered over the centuries because of people filtering God's Word
    as they please.  Again we get down to the filter issue: you filtering 
    God's Word vs. God's Word filtering you.
    
    Mike

>    Do that.  Which Bibles identify Timothy and Titus as being written by
>    Paul.  And what is the date of the edition.
    
    KJV, 1611.  We can go back to the first century church for non-English
    manuscripts.

    
    .58
    
    I don't think certainty is the issue. First, the strict issue is that
    someone attempted to bolster Patricia's position concerning the
    authorship of Scripture by using an example.  Since the idea was
    quantity, I stated that there are more Bibles with pages saying just
    the opposite.  So, if we want to go by the majority on this issue, the
    case is clear.
    
    The real issue is not the presence or lack of certainty on such
    historical matters but the probability.
    
    jeff

    I have entered the material on Timothy and Titus from three diverse
    sources in note 877.  The first three notes have this material.
    
    In that note  is ample convincing evidence that these books were not
    written by Paul.  It is also good reading to get an idea of how
    and why scholars reach there conclusions.
    
                                   Patricia

    
    > Since the idea was quantity, I stated that there are more Bibles with
    > pages saying just the opposite.

    The issue or "idea" was not quality. The idea was that Mike insinuated
    Patricia was exaggerating or out right fabricating the claim of
    scholarly support for her views on biblical authorship. 

    I cited the editorial notes in my bible for two reasons: it shows that
    Patricia was not making it up, and that these opinions are shared by
    the Roman Catholic church who's scholarship I hold in high esteem. The
    latter reason was to counter the assertion that only infamous scholars
    would agree with her. I mention the quantity of researcher/scholars
    only to point out that it wasn't just a couple of wayward priests and a
    feminist nun who did the research. 

    As I said earlier, I didn't expect to change any minds. I had hoped
    that some people would back off, however, on the issues of biblical
    authorship.

    Eric

>    In that note  is ample convincing evidence that these books were not
>    written by Paul.  It is also good reading to get an idea of how
>    and why scholars reach there conclusions.
    
    it didn't convince me since I've read evidence to the contrary.

I have a Catholic Bible, published in 1989 by the Faculty of Theology of
the University of Navarre, which I have quoted from several times, which
states (regarding Timothy and Titus):

	In the nineteenth centurey some liberal Protestants argued
	against Pauline authorship; others were ready to accept that
	the letters contain many parts written by St. Paul and later
	edited together with a lot of touching up.  Early in the
	present century the Pontifical Bible Commission pronounced
	that there were insufficient grounds for saying that St Paul
	was not the author.

	Today, although there are some scholars who doubt the letters'
	Pauline authenticity, many others meet the objections they
	raise.  The main objections have to do with: 1) the fact that
	the language and style is different from the rest of the
	Pauline corpus; 2) the different kind of content -- practical
	or moral as distinct from theological; 3) the Church organization
	reflected in the letters and even 4) the difficulty of working
	out when the Apostle could have written them.

	However, wehn the question is studied carefully there are not
	really all that many differences in terminology or doctrine, and
	there are many more ways in which these and the other letters
	coincide.

The text goes on to state that Paul would have been older and may have used
a different secretary to help write down and edit these letters.  The letters
are then dated to 65 for 1 Tim and 67 for 2 Tim.

/john

    
    >    -< Conservative Catholics reject the `New American Bible' >-

    Pope Paul VI, however, specifically endorsed the New American Bible. I
    don't think there is any doubting that there is some disagreement among
    reputable scholars on the authorship of the Pastorals. You may well be
    correct, and Patricia wrong. I just think it's inaccurate to say that,
    today, only fringe "infamous" scholars question the *authorship* of
    these two or three letters.

    The other assertion, John, is that the four gospels were written by
    apostles of Christ. What do the conservatives at the University of
    Navaree have to say about the authorship of the Gospels?

    	Eric

The Navarre Bible is a full length commentary using the Revised Standard
Version (Catholic Edition) as the text; only the New Testament has been
published so far, in twelve volumes.  The various authorship discussions
are quite long, but here are some short excerpts:

MATTHEW

The constant tradition of the Church from earliest times identifies
the human author of this Gospel as the Apostle St. Matthew, one of
the original twelve.  The Pontifical Bible Commission stated that
the original Aramaic or Hebrew text of Matthew is to be dated prior
to the destruction of Jerusalem and indeed prior to St. Paul's journey
to Rome (the year 60).  The estimated date is around the year 50.
We do not know the date of the Greek text, nor do we know whether
the Greek editor was St. Matthew himself or some other early Christian.
The most likely date for this text is around the year 70.

MARK

Christian tradition has always attributed the Second Gospel to St. Mark.
We can be sure that Mark knew Jesus Christ personally, although he was
not one of the twelve Apostles: most ecclesiastical writers see him in
Mk 14:51-52, the episode of the young man who leaves his sheet behind
as he flees from the garden when Jesus is arrested.  He was the son of
Mary, a well-to-do widow, in whose house in Jerusalem the first
Christians used to gather.  This is the Cenacle, in which the Last
Supper was celebrated; Mary probably also owned the Garden of Olives.
St. Mark is called Mark in Acts 15:39 and John Mark in Acts 12:12 and
15:37, whereas in Acts 13:5-13 he is referred to as John.  This double
naming was a common practice among Jews at the time.

LUKE 

The third gospel was written by St Luke.  Christian tradition is quite
clear about this, and it is borne out by scholarly study of the text:
He writes a very elegant Greek; he shows his medical knowledge by the
technical terms he uses and the way in which he describes particular
illnesses; the internal evidence shows that he was the same person who
wrote Acts; he was a disciple of St. Paul, shown by the affinity in
both language and doctrine with Paul's letters.

JOHN

The great mass of the information that has come down from Christian
antiquity and the internal evidence all argue in favour of St. John
the Apostle as the author of the Fourth Gospel.  So it is not surprising
that the Church has always held to the traditional attribution of the
Fourth Gospel to St. John.

GENERAL

In the early centuries it was extremely necessary for the Church to
identify which were the true Gospels and who wrote them, for there were
already many books in circulation which heretics used to help spread
their errors.  In replying to heresy the Christians put forward the
genuine apostolic tradition, making it quite clear that the Gospels
officially used in the Church came either from Apostles themselves
-- St Matthew and St John -- or from their immediate disciples,
so-called "apostolic men" -- St Mark and St Luke.

So the Gospels' apostolic origin and authenticity -- that is, that they
were written precisely by those to whom they are attributed -- are
something that has been held in all parts of the Church from the first
centuries.  St. Augustine says: "You should believe that this is Matthew's
because the Church has preserved this book ever since the time when
Matthew lived, through an uninterrupted series of generations, in an
unfailing succession, down to our own day."

	Jack, your .59 is very good. I have seen similar postings by you in the
past. But sooner or later, you drag the Bible into it as having to BE part of
it all. Why the inconsistancy?

    Glen:
    
    I belief system has to have an origin...and that origin has to begin in
    one of two places.
    
    1. It has to originate from some sort of authoritative base of
    information, hence we have the bible.
    
    2. It has to be fabricated or philosophied in ones imagination or
    intellect.  This is great if you are in the scientific community.  
    
    You seem to be mixing the two.  This to me is like mixing poison in
    your grape juice.  
    
    -Jack

    >A belief system has to have an origin...and that origin has to begin in
    >one of two places.
    
    >1. It has to originate from some sort of authoritative base of
    >information, hence we have the bible.
    
    >2. It has to be fabricated or philosophied in ones imagination or
    >intellect.  This is great if you are in the scientific community.  
    
    
    Based on this logic, Did Abraham's belief system fall into one or two?
    
    Did John the  Baptists belief system fall into one of two?
    
    Did Paul's belief system fall into one or two?

| <<< Note 1093.70 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I belief system has to have an origin...and that origin has to begin in
| one of two places.

| 1. It has to originate from some sort of authoritative base of
| information, hence we have the bible.

	Let's look at that Jack. How many people in this world have read the
Bible? How many have read it, and found God? How many people have found God,
but without the Bible? God can use words written in the Bible to give meaning
to someone to follow Him. God could use a tradgedy to open ones eyes. God could
use a miracle to bring someone to Him. God could use a street sighn to bring
one to Him. He can put all of these things in our path to get us to openly and
willingly, follow Him. But that is due to what method He decides to use, and if
we are willing to take that step. So I agree that various words in the Bible
could be used to open ones eyes to Him, but I also feel it doesn't stop there,
and it is not the only method He uses.

| 2. It has to be fabricated or philosophied in ones imagination or intellect.  
| This is great if you are in the scientific community. You seem to be mixing 
| the two.  

	Errrrr..... Jack, what appears to be happening is you have your beliefs,
to which mine don't match. You have then put me into the 2nd catagory, and have
told me I am mixing them up. If you were God, you could say this, and be
correct. But you are not, and so without knowing what is in my heart, the above
is not something you can say, is it?



Glen

   ZZ     Based on this logic, Did Abraham's belief system fall into one or
   ZZ     two?
     
    Definitely based on one.  Abraham had direct communication with God.
       
   ZZ     Did John the  Baptists belief system fall into one of two?
     
    John's belief system also fell under 1.  John was ordained in his
    ministry just before he was conceived and his ministry was prophesied
    in Isaiah and Malachi.  He was a voice crying in the wilderness.
       
   ZZ     Did Paul's belief system fall into one or two?
    
    I know what we are coming to here.  I believe it's foundation came from
    1 since he was ordained and he became an apostle on the road to
    Damascus.  I believe Paul established the proper conduct and protocol
    for operating a local church and I believe his attitudes were Christ
    centered.  I don't believe Paul was a homophobe...I believe his
    attitudes were molded by his study of the Old Testament.  I believe he
    had a proper understanding of gender roles in the church and a proper
    understanding of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, anyone can have a direct line with God. It's called prayer. 

 ZZ   How many people have found God, but without the Bible? 
    
    Except you believe in the name of the Son of God you have no part in
    Him, but the wrath of God abide in you.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    Then why did God state he does not hear the prayers of the unrighteous?

| <<< Note 1093.75 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ   How many people have found God, but without the Bible?

| Except you believe in the name of the Son of God you have no part in Him, but 
| the wrath of God abide in you.

	Jack, I'm sure this is already spelt out nice and clearly, but I don't
get it. (no comments from the peanut gallery!)  Could you explain what you said
above?


Glen

| <<< Note 1093.76 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Then why did God state he does not hear the prayers of the unrighteous?

	Jack, let Him determine who is unrighteous. That's all I am asking. 

    Something to think about in reference to criticizing any Biblical
    author: go back and review some of your own writing 5-10-15 years ago. 
    Personally speaking, the way I write has changed dramatically.  Bible
    critics never seem to give Paul or any other gospel author the same
    consideration.
    
    Mike

    Glen:
    
    The Bible, which comes from the heart of God, clearly distinguishes
    between what is holy and sanctified and what is worldly and
    unsanctified.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1093.80 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| The Bible, which comes from the heart of God, 

	According to your belief.....

| clearly distinguishes between what is holy and sanctified and what is worldly 
| and unsanctified.

	according to the humans who wrote it, who had free will. and if clearly
is real, then we just ain't getting it cuz even between yourselves, you can't
agree on everything.

 ZZ    The Bible, which comes from the heart of God, 
    
 ZZ           According to your belief.....
    
    Right...which has already been established.  So it's pointless to have
    discourse when our standards of measurement are totally opposite.  
    
    -Jack

    re: Jesus who?
    
    I heard Pastor Chuck Smith mention something interesting on a tape
    yesterday on 2 Peter 1-3.  He was talking about those that reject the
    Bible as God's Word and the dangers of that type of thinking.  He
    basically said that when people do that, they picture God from within
    themselves, exalting their own personality traits, characteristics, and
    habits to an ideal state to form their own vision of God and His
    nature.  The fallibility of this view is that it is not only biased,
    but totally inaccurate.  The revelation of God and His nature has to 
    come from an unbiased source, devoid of what man's expectations, and
    outside of time.  The full revelation of God and His nature is found in
    Jesus Christ and His Word.  Our perspectives don't mean a thing with
    eternity at stake.
    
    Mike

re Note 1093.83 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     I heard Pastor Chuck Smith mention something interesting on a tape
>     yesterday on 2 Peter 1-3.  He was talking about those that reject the
>     Bible as God's Word and the dangers of that type of thinking.  He
>     basically said that when people do that, they picture God from within
>     themselves, exalting their own personality traits, characteristics, and
>     habits to an ideal state to form their own vision of God and His
>     nature.  The fallibility of this view is that it is not only biased,
>     but totally inaccurate.  

        This no doubt has some truth. Where Pastor Chuck goes wrong
        is in assuming that, by regarding the Bible to be
        God-authored, that bias is eliminated or even reduced.  This
        is clearly not true -- text, regardless of who authored it,
        has meaning only given human understanding, and human
        understanding is based upon human knowledge and assumptions.

        The big problem with the "Bible as God's Word" position is
        that it is *so* easy for those who adhere to it to believe
        that their understanding is correct and unbiased, where in
        fact this is not true.

        It is far better to know that you don't know "for sure" than
        to be deceived into thinking you know for sure.  

>     Our perspectives don't mean a thing with
>     eternity at stake.
  
        Perhaps that is true, but you *cannot* escape human
        perspectives -- all you can do is deny them, which in itself
        is serious error.

        Bob

    The danger of undermining human rationality and human intuition, is
    that you then have no tools for knowing or perceiving anything.
    
    There is general revelation and there is special revelation.  The two
    go hand and hand.  General revelation enhances special revelation and
    special revelation enhances general revelation.
    
    General revelation is that which we intuit from our own mental and
    physical facilities about our existence, our experience, and creation. 
    Paul in Romans affirms this when he says that from the beginning of
    time we could know God by that which God has created.
    
    Our key to understanding and analysing special revelation is general
    revelation and vice versa.  Our rational facilities can perceive when
    the Bible contradicts itself and they can also perceive truth from
    falsehood.  There are some who want us to believe that love is hate and
    hate is love.   There are some who would use this logic to attribute
    some hateful things to a God of Love.  Anyone who has faith in the  God
    of Love intuits this deception.  The problem is not directly in
    believing that the Bible is 100% accurate.  The problem is in believing
    that those things in the Bible that are evil, must be from God because
    they are recorded in the Bible.  There is no hope for humanity if we
    cannot distinguish love from hate and good from evil.  Because there is
    a God, and because God created each one of us in God's image, then we
    have the facilities to know what is Love and what is Hate.  What is
    Good and what is Evil.  Because we are not perfect, we do not always
    act out of that knowledge, but we do know it.  Lieing, stealing,
    killing, torturing, belittling, cheating,  wasting are all evil.
    
    Loving, affirming, cooperating, helping, building up are all Good.
    
    We know these things because we are human and our human reasoning is
    from God.
    
           
    
                                   Patricia

    So where do we draw the line between extrapolating our ideals into
    God's nature and God's actual nature?  How do we know what God's actual
    nature is?  What objective revelation exists so that we don't err?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

"Decision determines direction.  Direction determines destiny." - Howard
Hendricks.

1. Do you have a heart open to correction?

2. Do you cherish your opinions more than God's Word?

3. Are you of the opinion that you were born a {insert denomination} and will
   die a {insert denomination}?

4. Do you cherish your traditions more than the truth, even if they conflict
   with the truth?

5. Do you rationalize your not obeying the truth?

6. Do you get mad at the delivery person or God's messenger?

7. Do you tolerate falsehood of any kind?  (cf. 2 John, 3 John)

8. Do you compromise the truth? (cf. 2 John, 3 John)

9. Do you think unity and peace are more important than truth?
   (cf. Ephesians 4:21, John 14:6)

10. Would you leave everything (church, job, friends, family, etc.) in pursuit
    of the truth?

Absence of desire for truth is evidence of a lost condition.  Desensitizing
yourself to truth upon exposure to God's truth is rejecting God.

	"It is a paradox to speak of a 'doctrine' of scripture, as if there
were one dogmatically defined or at least commonly agreed doctrine held by
all Christians.  This is of course not the case.  Nor has it ever been the
case.  There are different degrees of canonicity -- the Bible itself bears
witness to this variety in evaluation.  At the same time, it is true that
Christians have always looked upon the Bible as a sacred book, 'inspired'
by God, and containing the record of divine revelation in the past and the
permanent unchanging 'word' of God to all later generations of mankind."

   pg 121, _Ancient Judaism and the New Testament_, Frederick Grant (1959)

Shalom,
Richard