1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
:idunno: maybe you should read the quote before you hit the button?
Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.
- Thread starter popsthebuilder
- Start date
:idunno: maybe you should read the quote before you hit the button?
God's Truth
New member
So you don't have a scripture you would like to talk about?
God's Truth
New member
The Father came as a Son of man in the flesh and become poor for our sake.
God's Truth
New member
I thought you were finally starting to understand but it looks like if you were, you lost it.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Looks more like you and glory should stop fighting.
You two got more in common than you know.
God's Truth
New member
You are as confused as I thought you were.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
It purdy much comes down to God calling things that are not as though they were.
I'll grant yuh, it can be confusing. :think:
glorydaz
Well-known member
This is why they went backwards when he said I am he....
Psalms 70:2
“Let them be ashamed and confounded that seek after my soul: let them be turned backward, and put to confusion, that desire my hurt.”
John 18:6
“As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”
Psalm 70 is the Son praying to His Father.
Not some proof text he is God.
Spoiler
"Let them be turned backward..." is a prayer for respite from one's enemies.
Psalm 70:2-3
2 Let them be ashamed and confounded that seek after my soul: let them be turned backward, and put to confusion, that desire my hurt. 3 Let them be turned back for a reward of their shame that say, Aha, aha.
2 Let them be ashamed and confounded that seek after my soul: let them be turned backward, and put to confusion, that desire my hurt. 3 Let them be turned back for a reward of their shame that say, Aha, aha.
Jesus was not praying they would be turned back. He had come to die, and His time had come which is why He declared Himself so readily to be the great I AM. They fell backward in shock that He had declared Himself God. Just as they crucified Him because He declared Himself to be God.
Look at this from the perspective of the Jews and what they thought Jesus meant. They knew He was not just claiming to be a son of God like men who followed God.
Matt. 26:63-67 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Now look closely.
John 10:33-35
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Greg Jennings
New member
Don't know about sacred.
But the texts you mention are imperative for the understanding of human history. That's why even many atheists (Richard Dawkins chief among them) will say that the Bible is the most important book ever written. You cannot understand the history of western civilization (which I think I can objectively say has been the most successful since its inception) without it. You cannot understand the history of the Middle East/ Levant without the Quran and Torah. You cannot understand pre-20th century Asian culture without the Buddha, and in India specifically the ancient Hindu texts.
Sadly, China has since buried its traditional past and with it the connections to Buddhism/Taoism that once existed there en masse. But those little commies have done a darn good job in the last 60 years. Soon they'll be the world's police instead of us
God's Truth
New member
You caught something that glorydaze was explaining but she fights against it.
However, instead of you believing that Jesus is the I AM in the Old Testament, and therefore God the Father come later as a Son in the flesh, you deny it and even deny Jesus said before Abraham was I AM.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Will bite, but taking the 'line' in another direction 
Will bite, but taking the 'line' in another direction
No. A good many liberal 'biblical' or 'religious studies' scholars do not either, because they recognize the there are some embellishments, fictional narratives, literary devices, mythology and other allegory within the Bible (besides some errors, inconsistencies or contradictions within some passages). This would be the case in many religious writings of any sizable volume, conditioned by other factors that have affected the compositions written. That some 'religious fiction' and 'history' would naturally be mixed together in some 'sacred texts' is expected. (note that some texts may still be more or less 'inspired', even with distortions of human imperfection present, I've NEVER denied that the Bible contains inspired portions, wisdom, edifying poetry/allegory, mythology, historical value within its own context, but see no rationale to assume it is wholly inerrant, perfect or infallible. Only the truth that is eternal, of the spirit of truth itself, is the essence of truth or perfection.)
From a purely secular historical point of view, narratives showcasing incredible miracles, supernatural feats, extraordinary events are not usually accepted as 'historical' besides being 'faith literature' or 'mythology'. These events are not believed by historians in general (or agnostics/atheists/non believers), except MAYBE by religious historians or 'apologists' of the particular texts in question.
This is just addressing a few aspects of the question of the wholesale belief in the total perfection (or 'finality' for that matter) of any 'sacred text'. Also note that one does not have to believe a sacred text is wholly inerrant or totally free of 'fictional embellishemnt' or 'mythology', since a text can still communicate religious and spiritual meanings and values. I would have you note that as a spiritualist and mystic by nature and orientation, I do not deny the reality of the supernatural, miraculous or the creative powers inherent in faith itself (also spiritual gifts and anointings), which would be powers derived from the Creator and the creative laws, but may approach and interpret these differently.
Will bite, but taking the 'line' in another direction
No. A good many liberal 'biblical' or 'religious studies' scholars do not either, because they recognize the there are some embellishments, fictional narratives, literary devices, mythology and other allegory within the Bible (besides some errors, inconsistencies or contradictions within some passages). This would be the case in many religious writings of any sizable volume, conditioned by other factors that have affected the compositions written. That some 'religious fiction' and 'history' would naturally be mixed together in some 'sacred texts' is expected. (note that some texts may still be more or less 'inspired', even with distortions of human imperfection present, I've NEVER denied that the Bible contains inspired portions, wisdom, edifying poetry/allegory, mythology, historical value within its own context, but see no rationale to assume it is wholly inerrant, perfect or infallible. Only the truth that is eternal, of the spirit of truth itself, is the essence of truth or perfection.)
From a purely secular historical point of view, narratives showcasing incredible miracles, supernatural feats, extraordinary events are not usually accepted as 'historical' besides being 'faith literature' or 'mythology'. These events are not believed by historians in general (or agnostics/atheists/non believers), except MAYBE by religious historians or 'apologists' of the particular texts in question.
This is just addressing a few aspects of the question of the wholesale belief in the total perfection (or 'finality' for that matter) of any 'sacred text'. Also note that one does not have to believe a sacred text is wholly inerrant or totally free of 'fictional embellishemnt' or 'mythology', since a text can still communicate religious and spiritual meanings and values. I would have you note that as a spiritualist and mystic by nature and orientation, I do not deny the reality of the supernatural, miraculous or the creative powers inherent in faith itself (also spiritual gifts and anointings), which would be powers derived from the Creator and the creative laws, but may approach and interpret these differently.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, His flesh certainly didn't come down from heaven....He was born of a woman, remember? :doh:
Jesus was the Word become flesh, so yes, He came from heaven and became flesh.
Flesh means human being, like all human beings, with body, soul, and spirit.
Try to follow ....God the Word (who was WITH GOD), took on the form of a servant (mankind-humanity).
If you close our eyes, you can picture it happening. :cloud9:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
My main point was that it was written therefore it must be done.
Really?
Matthew 26:39 39Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
True.
No, they fell backward because God knocked em down.
Then Jesus healed the servant and offered himself to them on the condition they let his disciples go free.
No where in that testimony did he say he was God or even the Christ at that time.
He said I am the son of God not a son of God.
King James Version
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
You might oughta throw that Darby bible in the trash.
Darby Bible Translation
do ye say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Where should I address my payment doc? :jazz:
glorydaz
Well-known member
That's a point, but I don't see it legitimate as to their falling backward.
Ah. then I'll have to totally disagree on that one, for sure.
It was to fulfill the scripture that He lost none. It was not "conditional", Jesus knew He would be taken, and He knew He was going to the cross. It was the Passover. Matthew 26:2
Clearly the Jews heard differently. It was their Sacred Scripture, after all.
Darby? What are you talking about?
I didn't say He was claiming to be just any "son of God", did I?
No, I said they KNEW HE was not claiming that.
He made Himself God by calling Himself the Son of God, because they knew there was only ONE TRUE GOD. By Jesus saying what He did, they accused Him of calling Himself God.
The text I gave you, shows what the Jews understood Him to be saying.
They understood what you refuse to.
John 10:33
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
glorydaz
Well-known member
Tell ya what. You learn to quote correctly, and then you can show me.
glorydaz
Well-known member
What in the world did you do to my quote? You have my post going back to Christine, and a 2004 posting.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
It's fixed now.
I think. lol
Let me just ask you this....
How did the Jews jump from son of God to making himself God?
The before Abraham was, I am didn't cut it.
marhig
Well-known member
No, you've read it wrong yet again! I've re-quoted what I've written and I'm clearly showing you I said anointed making him the Christ, meaning he was the Christ because he was fully anointed of God.
Also, where did i say that Jesus received the Holy Spirit at baptism? You're saying that you've shown me, but you haven't! And that's because I've never said it. And yet again once people say things you don't agree with, you pull out the dishonesty card. I am not a liar.
I have told you what I believe to be the truth, so please stop changing my words to suit what you think I believe!