Protestantism

» Migisi - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
In fact, it's implied that they were partaking of it while in the Garden.
.
Gen 3:22 - "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
.
It doesn't sound to me like they'd eaten the eternal life fruit before. Seems the gods were worried that Adam/Eve would do that - now that they had knowledge about the power it had. But hey, I wasn't there. Besides, it's only a story.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brother_Jones - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Migisi:

Good word choice: 'forced'.

Well, God is going is to be God no matter what you and I decided about the matter. And the bible teaches us that He loves us and He will pursue us. We are 'forced' to live in that world.

I like the fact that you have a course, mission, or strategy if you will, to get involved in the nitty gritty details of Scripture. Someday that may prove a point to you about God.
It not any easy thing to get involved in the spiritual realm and then decide that the Jews 'cooked the books,' which is what seems to have happened to you. Because the question turns back around to motivation and why Jesus came into the world, and whether He became the world's biggest deceiver or the world's Savior. You are forced in a way to make a decision in the matter of Jesus if you consider yourself a spiritual person. There are people here that sorta see things the way you do, but still agree that Jesus is a reliable source of information about God Almighty.

i am the Lord's oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - My Fair Targets

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Adam and Eve would NOT have been banished from the Garden had they not fallen into sin.
.
You are completely evading the focused question. That is and has been predictable in that Evangelicals teach that disobedience is the original and continuing sin--it serves a purpose not to focus on the question about the meaning of the name of the tree that bore the forbidden fruit.
.
But, you attack Me (and Migisi) for standing in opposition to religionism. There is a difference between Migisi and myself regarding our stands. She comes out of a Roman Catholic tradition and I come out of the core of Fundamentalism--two distinctly different back grounds; yet, somewhat associated. I can go into detail about others I know who have come from her back ground and I understand their reasoning. Few come out of stringent Fundamentalism like the old Pink. Perhaps it is a little more difficult for other to understand my reasoning?
.
I think we need a new thread to deal with the issue that is involved here.
.
The trouble is that Religionism--not Christianity--is the problem.
.
Do ANY self-claimed Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, or any other stringent.Christians think they can be objective in such a thread?
.
I am NOT an anti-Christian; but, I am danged well opposed to Religionism where ever it rears its evil head. Those who come here as Religionists are my fair targets.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Brother_Jones:
.
And the bible teaches us that He loves us and He will pursue us. We are 'forced' to live in that world.
.
'Pursue' us? Yikes. Should I be looking over my shoulder? (wink) I think you're referring to the 'lost sheep' parable, right? Even as a child, I wondered why the sheep went off on its own. Was it a 'black sheep' - different from the others - rejected by the flock and forced to leave? The 'Ugly Duckling' story? Did it seek greener pastures because the grazing field was barren or the grass tasted bad? And who was protecting the ninety-nine while the shepherd was off pursuing the one? Guess even at my age, I'm still quite the questioning child.
.
--------------
.
I like the fact that you have a course, mission, or strategy if you will, to get involved in the nitty gritty details of Scripture. Someday that may prove a point to you about God.
.
It's amazing to me how many faithful Christians (and Jews) have never bothered to read the book they profess to love and follow. The Bible sits on their library shelf collecting dust. Its binding has never been cracked, it still smells new, and it's clean. There's no page corner creasing, margin notes, underlinings or highlighting, and definitely no question marks. When I have faith discussions with friends or family, I ask them to get their Bible. By its condition, I can tell that I've won the argument even before it begins. How's your Bible looking these days, Jones? (wink)
.
--------------
.
It not any easy thing to get involved in the spiritual realm and then decide that the Jews 'cooked the books,' which is what seems to have happened to you.
.
Why single out 'the Jews' as the chefs? They're not known for their fine cuisine. Some Spanish monk or Italian pope could've just as easily changed the recipe to make it swallowable, or spice things up a notch. BAM! (Tee hee)
.
---------------
.
Because the question turns back around to motivation and why Jesus came into the world, and whether He became the world's biggest deceiver or the world's Savior.
.
In the story, Jesus was born into the world - just like you and I were. If 'why' can even be asked and answered about Jesus, we'd have to ask and answer 'why' about our own existence and purpose in the world, no?
.
I wonder what Jesus would say today if he read what was written about him... the things he allegedly said and did in his life. Would he say, "That's not what I meant." Or "That's NOT what happened!" Or "That's only the half of it!" Or "Sheesh, they really twisted what I said into something totally different." Guess we'll never know until he comes back. Then the heads will roll, ay?
.
----------------
.
You are forced in a way to make a decision in the matter of Jesus if you consider yourself a spiritual person.
.
No, I could just go along with the crowd - without thinking about Jesus or making personal spiritual decisions for myself.
.
There are people here that sorta see things the way you do, but still agree that Jesus is a reliable source of information about God Almighty.
.
Do they agree that JESUS is the reliable source of information about God - or that the BIBLE is? They do quote other Bible characters besides Jesus.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brother_Jones - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Migisi:

And who was protecting the ninety-nine while the shepherd was off pursuing the one? Guess even at my age, I'm still quite the questioning child.

You either have a loving God or you don't. I suppose that your position is that you have one, but not of the bible variety.
It's amazing to me how many faithful Christians (and Jews) have never bothered to read the book they profess to love and follow.

I'm sort of astonished by non-believers who criticize the bible but can't list a single scholarly book they have read dealing with the actual makings of the ancient books. It is a study all its own.

Why single out 'the Jews' as the chefs? They're not known for their fine cuisine. Some Spanish monk or Italian pope could've just as easily changed the recipe to make it swallowable, or spice things up a notch. BAM! (Tee hee)

Well, uh, I guess it is because I have spent the greater portion of my life studying these issues. Have you? Maybe you could give a single example of what you are talking about when it comes to biblical text error. I do know that there are some interesting things occuring the ancient text, but I'm really not sure if you and I are on the same page about this. (wink back,lol) Just give an example or a couple of examples, because I'm not a scholar in this area, but I might be able to help with a few problem areas that you question about the text.

In the story, Jesus was born into the world - just like you and I were. If 'why' can even be asked and answered about Jesus, we'd have to ask and answer 'why' about our own existence and purpose in the world, no?

Well, read the story. Neither Adam or Jesus was born into the world like you and me. I assume that you had an earthly mom and dad. So did I.

I wonder what Jesus would say today if he read what was written about him...

What is the best words of Jesus for you? I have always wanted to know migisi's best verse. It is possible for you to even doubt your own choice. lol. Maybe some deceitful rascal put those words down to trick you in some way. I guess that is possible in the realm of believing that no supernatural things occur in your life.

i am the Lord's oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» Migisi - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Brother_Jones:
.
I suppose that your position is that you have one, but not of the bible variety.
.
Your supposition is correct.
.
I'm sort of astonished by non-believers who criticize the bible but can't list a single scholarly book they have read dealing with the actual makings of the ancient books. It is a study all its own.
.
Indeed it is.
.
Just give an example or a couple of examples, because I'm not a scholar in this area, but I might be able to help with a few problem areas that you question about the text.
.
Watkins compares several Bible versions with the KJV (his preference) here: http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Words and phrases have been removed, changed, and added. It's clear from this that scriptures are being edited today. Perhaps for good reasons: Changing holy books in order to modify beliefs & alter behaviors http://www.religioustolerance.org/tomek2...
In a few generations, will we even recognize 1st century Christianity? Do we recognize it today? Even back in Jeremiah's day, scribes were accused of mishandling scripture:
Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
.
Gotta go do lunch with my daughter and grandbabies. I'll be back. Be good to each other.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - what Jesus would say today

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Migisi:

I wonder what Jesus would say today if he read what was written about him... the things he allegedly said and did in his life. Would he say, "That's not what I meant." Or "That's NOT what happened!" Or "That's only the half of it!" Or "Sheesh, they really twisted what I said into something totally different." Guess we'll never know until he comes back. Then the heads will roll, ay?

In ancient Hebrew days, the Temple was the center of the life of the Jews... The house that Solomon built did not house God, as the Preacher would say... In the NT, we have a new dispensation... That God would dwell in each person, as he gave to us, the Holy Spirit... Your body is the Temple of God - is what that verse means.. To a Jew in that day, this would have been an unthinkable situation to be placed into... But, the scriptures claim that 3000 were saved in one instant with Peter's speech.. (sermon).. and, keep in mind, Peter was a Jew himself.. so .. a very new approach for him as well...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Ka-Zing!

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Migisi:
.
In a few generations, will we even recognize 1st century Christianity? Do we recognize it today?
.
Ka-Zing!
.
That arrow hit the bullseye right in its center.
.
Do we even come close to recognizing it today?
.
I just watched a History Channel on the ninteenth century prophecies that Jesus was on his way. What a bunch of gobble-de-gook trying to prove one doctrine over another.
.
The Bible is an isolated work unto itself. It comes to us as the totality of a Religionist People that went into a diaspora before its New Testament was written. My supposition is that there was a strong drive in the writers to preserve a justification for their destruction as a nation by such an ungodly as the Roman Empire. The lapse of time from the events as they occurred and the writing of the New Testament documents might be attributed to the powerful forces of Juris Romana and the military strength of the Caesars. I think there must have been a great deal of focus on the oppressive forces of government of the time.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Migisi:

Words and phrases have been removed, changed, and added. It's clear from this that scriptures are being edited today. Perhaps for good reasons:

Right, I agree, but I believe you are talking about after the manuscripts came out of the cave, the ground, or the Ark, or where ever they came to be found. Scholarship agrees that the KJV version of the bible was needful of new scholarship that took advantage of more recent finds of the older bible manuscripts. And also more studies came to light about the ancient culture because of the digging into ancient soils. But migisi, what scholars found was that ancient manuscripts agree almost perfectly with each other. There is no reason to advance a notion that other tribes and other 'holy men' contrived to alter the original writings. We don't have any of the original Autographs (books) of the bible. But the believers in the ancient land believed so strongly that they needed to give us the original words, that they made hundreds of copies of those manuscripts.
Of course neither the copies are inspired, nor the translation. But the words are inspired by God according to the bible. When the KJV was compiled the translators chose to include at least two words not found in the ancient manuscripts which were Easter and Shoes, because the scholars wanted to pass along an idea of a holiday and a footwear that would convey a particular mental image to their readers. Now that we know better, modern translators attempt to translate more accurately if they are intent on giving the original meanings to the idea of a 'special day,' or the 'sandals,' worn by the Jews.

In a few generations, will we even recognize 1st century Christianity? Do we recognize it today?

We can if we take the first century seriously and study the ancient culture along with the ancient Book in context.

i'm the Lord's oldtimer

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» Migisi - Interesting Tree symbolism

In response to Interesting Tree symbolism posted by Brother_Jones:
.
We don't have any of the original Autographs (books) of the bible.
.
True. Without them, how can modern Bible versions be checked for errors, omissions, and interpolations?
.
Scholarship agrees that the KJV version of the bible was needful of new scholarship that took advantage of more recent finds of the older bible manuscripts.
.
Does this imply that perhaps the old KJV - used by millions of Christians for centuries - was incomplete or inaccurate? And that the Bible is not a finished work, but is 'evolving'?
.
But migisi, what scholars found was that ancient manuscripts agree almost perfectly with each other.
.
Which ancient manuscripts are you referring to? Which were compared to what? The original Bible manuscripts no longer exist. If recent finds agree perfectly with the Bible as written, there'd be no reason to revise and update it, would there?
.
There is no reason to advance a notion that other tribes and other 'holy men' contrived to alter the original writings.
.
How can you be convinced of that - given the 'sinful' nature of Man, and the corruption of the later church and its leaders. I think we can agree on one thing: I can say the writings were altered. You can say they weren't. Neither of us can prove our position because we don't have the originals for comparison.
.
But the believers in the ancient land believed so strongly that they needed to give us the original words, that they made hundreds of copies of those manuscripts.
.
They made copies to distribute to the churches for 'uniformity' purposes - so everyone would be on the same doctrinal page. But besides that, I can make 100 photocopies. If my original contains errors, my copies will have the same errors. Given the discrepancies between Gospels, either God was confused when he inspired each writer, or the writer wasn't listening very well.
.
Now that we know better, modern translators attempt to translate more accurately if they are intent on giving the original meanings to the idea of a 'special day,' or the 'sandals,' worn by the Jews.
.
Do 'we know better' now? The remark implies that the previous translators were inaccurate in their translations. I've read Jewish scholars on this subject, and they confirm there were many errors in translations and cultural interpretations. Surely the Gospel writers wouldn't have made those errors, being Jews themselves and familiar with their own languages and culture. So who did make the errors?

-- posted by Migisi