- Skilliopolis said: [Alas the human mind rarely retains an exact recollection over time. If not recorded asap, that recollection fades and becomes distorted. IMessage 1 of 45 , Sep 2, 2012View SourceSkilliopolis said:
[Alas the human mind rarely retains an exact recollection over time. If not
recorded asap, that recollection fades and becomes distorted. I remember during
my academy training being a part of an illustration to prove that exact point.
Ten cops were kept apart and were given a detailed message to pass on to one of
those cops and so on as it was passed down the line. Only after 20 minutes, by
the time the message got to the last person it bore no resemblance to the
This is why it requires the idea that the Bible was supernaturally written for it to be accurate. I found it notable, even when I was a professing believer, that John had Jesus saying that the Holy Spirit would cause the disciples to accurately remember the words of Jesus. I have to wonder if the intellectuals of the days of the early church were already raising objections to the records of what Jesus said being accurate, due to the passage time between when Jesus spoke and when these writers wrote what they remembered he said, and also the fact that Jesus had spoken in a different language than the writers were quoting him in. The supernatural element has to be added to make it work, and many believers will smile and nod as you point this out.
Daveperth4 brought up the issue of all these different interpretations of the New Testament writings, and expressed the opinion that if God really had caused these Bible books to be written then there would be only one doctrine. What I sense in the New Testament is what I call fail safes. One obvious one says that in the last days mockers and scoffers will come asking why Jesus hasn't come back yet. This ensures that no matter how much time passes since the promise of the return of Jesus, the believer will have this answer for anyone who points out that it doesn't look like Jesus is actually going to come back. There is also a fail safe concerning the confusing nature of New Testament writings.
2 Peter 3:14-16
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The writer of 2 Peter is essentially saying that what Paul wrote is hard to understand, and that untaught and unstable people will distort these writings of the Apostle Paul. The problem is that each sect of Christianity accuses the other sects of being the ones who are distorting the truth of Scripture. The writer of 2 Peter says here that those who thus distort the meaning of the Scripture do so to their own destruction. I remember when I was in Wayman's World there would be preachers saying that those who believed in the eternal security of the Christian would certainly be damned. Also, there were people in other churches who said that speaking in tongues the way we did was demonic. And round and round it goes.
So, who is really understanding the Scriptures? If what Paul wrote is hard to understand, who has license to say that they are the true interpreter of what the Apostle Paul wrote? The writer of 2 Peter says it is the untaught and unstable who misinterpret the writings of Paul, and all the Scriptures, and they are thus destroyed. Why? Did they lack a competent teacher? If so, how could they help being untaught? With the constant danger of being taught by a false teacher, it might be better just to study the Bible on your own. I have a much better handle on what the writings in the Bible say than I did when I was taught in Waymanland what the Scriptures "really mean." There is no shortage of teachers and preachers out there who will also give you the inside scoop on the true meaning of Scripture. Just be aware that they are going to expect you to contribute generously to their "ministry."
It is enlightening to read the Bible without a set of dogmatic beliefs. You don't have to force any part of the Bible to say what you want it to say. There's some interesting stuff in there for sure. However, for me at least, a lot of it seems like those creative mythological stories which abounded in ancient civilizations.
Enough said on that for now.
Live Long and Prosper
- Haven t been around for awhile, but you, daveperth4 - GET IT. The fear of an eternal bar-b-que at the lake is nothing but a fear ploy to keep the sheep inMessage 45 of 45 , Sep 7, 2012View Source
Haven't been around for awhile, but you, daveperth4 - "GET IT. "
The fear of an eternal bar-b-que at the lake is nothing but a fear ploy to keep the sheep in "check".
God was absolutely abhorred that humans were burning their children for the god Molech., He said HE never considered such a thing (or something to that affect) and yet he is going to send someone to an everlasting torture chamber.
Those words have been so mistranslated that it is pathetic. So what about Hitler??? I believe he has been sufficiently punished for his horrible crime against us Jewish people. No need to torture him forever.
So, God is going to send me to "hell" for believing that he is a merciful God and that Jesus has paid for our sins???????????????????
(scratching my forehead)
Peace from Hot & Sunny San Antonio Texas!
--- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, "daveperth4" <prizm4@...> wrote:
> --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, "John"
> john.lunsmann@ wrote:
> > no way does the idea of eternal torture fit in with a Loving Father.
> That's the problem isn't it? Eternal torment is not consistent with the
> God described in the Bible. An infinite punishment for a finite
> crime/life. If God truly cannot allow sinners to reconcile with Him
> after death, then He could simply erase their existence. No need for
> Other reasons that cast doubt on the existence of hell is the lack of
> eternal torment in the Old Testament. Sheol is simply the grave, or at
> worst is a place of temporary punishment for the most evil of sinners
> (depends on which Jewish teachings you go with).
> It was Jesus that introduced us to hell as christians know it, as a
> place of unending torment. But after the gospels it is almost never
> mentioned again until you get to Revelation. Paul hardly utters a word,
> yet you'd think hell would deserve a fair mention in his letters.
> There's nothing in Acts. Here they are telling the world about Jesus,
> but zero warning of hell.
> Despite good reasons not to believe in hell, the problem is Jesus speaks
> a lot about it. "Depart from Me, into the everlasting fire", "these will
> go away into everlasting punishment", "fear Him, whom after He has
> killed, has the power to cast into hell" . Revelation is also clear
> about sinners being cast into the lake of fire. The beast and false
> prophet are "cast alive into the lake of fire" where they are "tormented
> day and night forever and ever".
> I have read apologetics that try to explain away Jesus' words on hell,
> and the explanations just get sillier and sillier. All this wordplay and
> convolution of the verses: "Everlasting punishment just means sinners
> are annihilated once for forever, they aren't actually tormented
> forever. Otherwise it would say everlasting punish-ing".
> The apologists have to do this manipulation with every single mention of
> hell and torment, and for me, it simply goes beyond plausibility.
> I wondered if Jesus' words were edited later, perhaps additions made by
> a later hell-bent scribe. Mark is generally regarded as the earliest
> gospel, and its ending was changed at a later date. Mark 16:9-20 were
> never part of the original (if you read NIV and other later
> translations, they will note these verses are only in certain
> manuscripts). I wondered if Jesus' words on hell were also changed or
> added. But apparently not. They were always there from the beginning.
> To me, that meant the gospel authors were putting words in Jesus' mouth.
> If someone was just making stuff up in the bible, which parts could I
> actually trust?