The Neverending Thread (was SATAN DECEIVES YOU)

[Beth]

Narrowpath, I know that you see it as a fairy tale.  I disagree.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth welcome back I am glad you decided to stay and keep going. I read your posts and in honesty I must admit that I do not understand what you say.[:I] Sorry I am a bit disadvantadged as english is not my first language and I have to look a lot of words up in a dictionary. Let me ask you. Do I understand you say that the Bible is a work of fiction but not nessesarily a lie??  That the accounts therein are not written at the time they happened but could be an account of what appear to have happened. !!! I believe that the words are ALIVE and changes and transforms in whatever language or mind they appear. I am still a bit in the dark and hardly dare ask seeing all the contention that seems to surround the subject  but what do you think about the stuf I included. I will include it again for your convinience. It sounds like there is something to this dosnt it.

Robert stated that:

"are you aware that there is absolutely 'no' historical proof to support 'anything' written in the new testament? The only thing that supports biblical history is the bible itself. This is fact that can be ascertained through historical records and university religious studies. The earliest historical evidence of christianity and the bible are a few late-third century 'fingernail sized' fragments that historians consider could 'possibly' be fragments of a very early version of the bible "

How does that relate to this:

Our Greek text is based on some very ancient manuscripts. Some of the most important manuscripts available today are listed below.

1. The Codex Vaticanus, or Codex B. The Codex Vaticanus is a vellum codex on 759 pages in uncial script. The manuscript has been dated to around AD 350 . It contains the entire New Testament, except Hebrews 9:13-end, I and II Timothy, Titus and Revelation. It also contains all of the Old Testament in Greek except the first few chapters of Genesis and several Psalms. The manuscript has been kept in the Vatican since at least 1481.

2. The Codex Sinaiticus, or Codex Aleph. The Sinaiticus manuscript received its name because it was discovered at St. Catharines Monastery on Mt. Sainai in 1844 by the biblical scholar Tischendorf. It was found in a basket of old parchments which were about to be thrown into a fire. This manuscript is now in the British Museum. Like the Vatican manuscript, it has been dated to around 350 AD. It contains much of the Old Testament in Greek, but most significantly, it has the entire New Testament in Greek.

3. The Alexandrian Codex, or Codex A. This is a fifth-century codex, containing most of the Old Testament and all the New Testament except a few pages of Matthew, two from 1st John and three from 2 Corinthians. This manuscript was found in Alexandria in Egypt, but was given as a gift to the king of England in 1621. The manuscript is now located on the British Library.

4. The Washington Manuscript. This manuscript from the end of the fourth century contains the four gospels. It is especially significant, as it contains Mark 16:9-20, unlike the three manuscripts already mentioned.

5. The Chester Beatty Papyri. This is a collection of a number of papyrus codex fragments, located in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland. One of the papyri contains thirty leaves of the New Testament in Greek which have been dated to the late second or early third century (ie. around 200 AD). Another includes 86 of 104 leaves of the letters of Paul from around from the early third century.

6. The Bodmer Papyri. This is a group of manuscripts found in the Bodmer Library of World Literature. Included are a complete manuscript of Luke and John dated to 175-225 BC, as well as a manuscript of over half of the book of John which has been dated as early as 150 AD.

7. The John Rylands Fragment. This papyrus fragment contains only John 18:31-33 and 37,38, which would make it an insignificant find except that it has been dated to 130 AD. This fragment was copied within fifty years of the death of the apostle John.

and this:

This research concerns a Josephus Flavius a much respected secular writer and historian from the 1st century. Try to search on his name and you might score as much as 500.000 hits in all languages.

Josephus was born in 37 A.D., just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He was the son of a priest named Matthias and at the age of 19 he became a Pharisee in Jerusalem. Later in his life he was appointed a commander in Galilee during the Jewish revolt against Rome.
After surrendering to the Romans, he was taken before the Roman Commander Vespasian and prophesied that God had shown him in a dream that Vespasian and his son Titus would soon become Emperor's of Rome. Shortly afterwards the dream became reality and Josephus became a member of Vespasian's household. During his stay in Rome he wrote two works dealing with Jewish history.

In his work entitled Jewish Antiquities, which was written between 70 and 100 A.D., he mentions Jesus the Messiah. Josephus is quoted below by Eusebius, an early Christian Bishop, in 324 A.D.:

"It was during this timeframe that Jesus lived, a wise man, if anyone could really call him a man. For he did many deeds that were out of the ordinary and was an instructor of those who accept the truth. Many of the Jews and Greeks put their trust in him. He being the Messiah. When our chief leaders accused him, Pilate condemned him to the cross, but his original disciples continued to follow him; for he had appeared before them on the third day alive again, as the prophets of God had spoken of these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, who had been named after him, remains to this present day."
A later Arabic manuscript written by a tenth-century Melkite historian named Agapius also quotes from the same passage of Josephus as follows:
"During this time there was a wise man named Jesus, and his actions were good, and he was known to be holy. Many people among the Jews and from other nations became his followers. He was condemned to be crucified and to die by the order of Pilate. But those who had become his disciples did not stray from his teaching. They proclaimed that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was restored to life. Thus, he may have been the Christ of whom wondrous things have been spoken of through the prophets. And the Christians, who were known by his name, have remained to this very day."
These statements confirm the following Christian beliefs found in the bible:

1) Jesus was the Messiah spoken of by the prophets.

2) He performed miracles.

3) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

4) He arose from the dead three days later and appeared to his disciples.



More on Flavius Josephus:
http://josephus.yorku.ca/links-texts.htm
http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/J_Sievers_ppr.pdf

Is this accaptable as historical evidence or do you believe it to be flawed. Please explain.

I am really not so deep but very interested in these things hope you dont mind.[]

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

And by the way how do you account for the prophesies that are fulfilled even to this day does that not infer Divine presesce and guidance.??

[Van-Stolin]

Man it seems that this topic has gone way off from what was originaly posted.  I really want to know what Allanon is trying to get at accusing people of saying that we are going to 'live forever' even if we don't accept Jesus.  I haven't seen one topic that says we will live forever when we die.  So far no spirt has come to me and said. "you will live forever, just don't belive in Christ."  Frankly all spirits I have talked to, have been real nice, they don't promise things and don't bother me when I don't want them to.  I just fail to see your reasoning for telling people what they should do even though we are given free will, this is one reason that I lost faith in the Bible.  I still respect the religion, but don't respect the people that try and shove it in my face and say "this is the truth".

Sorry if I have come off as offencive to any Christains on the board, the religion is a good one with many morels, but the people who preach it are easily corrupted, such is the way of all people.

[Narrow Path]

quote:Man it seems that this topic has gone way off from what was originaly posted. I really want to know what Allanon is trying to get at accusing people of saying that we are going to 'live forever' even if we don't accept Jesus. I haven't seen one topic that says we will live forever when we die. So far no spirt has come to me and said. "you will live forever, just don't belive in Christ." Frankly all spirits I have talked to, have been real nice, they don't promise things and don't bother me when I don't want them to. I just fail to see your reasoning for telling people what they should do even though we are given free will, this is one reason that I lost faith in the Bible. I still respect the religion, but don't respect the people that try and shove it in my face and say "this is the truth".

Sorry if I have come off as offencive to any Christains on the board, the religion is a good one with many morels, but the people who preach it are easily corrupted, such is the way of all people.

Van,

The fruits of astral projection and new age thinking is this.

A BELIEF IN AN IMMORTAL SOUL.

This is Satan's first lie and it still holds true today. If you look to Gen 2:7 I can explain more.

the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Man's soul DID NOT exist until you were first made physically. That is you dont have a soul that pre - existed your birth. It is the combination of

A. Your body
B. The breath of God
which =
C. Your soul

As we look to the modern spiritualist movement and what this board tries to teach we can see the deception quite clearly.

They beleive that without A or B there is still a soul.

Most here prescribed to the NDE mentality and immoratality of the soul false doctrine. They believe that when they die they have a part of them that "lives on". This is the lie of the Serpent. When you die you are dead. You will not know anything. There is no magical Light that speeds you off to bliss.

This is due to the deceptions of the evil one.

He wants you to believe that you will not be judged. That the sins of this life bear no consequences. But a scholar of the Bible realizes that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. And all men will be DESTINED TO DIE ETERNALLY DUE TO THIS SEPERATION FROM GOD. The false teachers want you to be fooled into thinking that life will go on and you will eventually attain perfection WITHOUT the blood of Christ. This is the New Age deception and the fruit of astral projection and meditation when done in opposition to the Word.

After death dont expect a magical ride to the stars. Expect a judgement. I recommend you make sure your butt is covered rather than trusting in man. Just believe in Jesus and the finished work of the cross. You will find peace this way.

Delve into the Word the Right Way. That is ask God for what He would have you know. Dont go looking for secret codes and signs. Just take the message for what it is.

A Hope for eternal life with God.

[Narrow Path]

quote:Narrowpath, I know that you see it as a fairy tale. I disagree.

I was being sacastic Beth. The Bible is no fairy tale. I thought you knew where I stood on the Objective Nature of the Word of God.

[Van-Stolin]

Weirdly enough I agree with you on the soul thing Narrow Path, we don't know exactly if the Bible is true or not it is a matter of opinion, but it is still a question of the human soul.  If the Bible wasn't real then where do we come from and how were we born, this is the only thing that I have yet to fiqure out if God isn't real.  I still think he exist and I wouldn't go making a deal with the devil, but still not all spirits you meet on the astral are nessicarily bad.  

But it still isn't nice to go and slap stick other religions, you can tell them once and if they don't want to don't force them, after all God gave us free will, I say let them do as they please, as long as you are looking out for their well being person wise that is still helping them, but trying to get them to convert when they say that they don't want to is only hurting them and as from what I have heard this isn't God's Will.

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path

the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Man's soul DID NOT exist until you were first made physically. That is you dont have a soul that pre - existed your birth.

Actually I would think this biblical quote DISPROVES your thinking altogether instead of vice-versa. It is stating that God's breath contained man's soul in it, that man's soul did exist before it became a physical being but it existed within and as a part of God. It implies that God breaths out and propagates life, and perhaps breathes in and re-absorbes life. Once again, the quote merely implies not that man's soul did not exist before his body, but that it indeed existed as a part of god which came off of/out of god to become a living existing being.
Good job being a paradox, christianity, I mean allanon.

[Beth]

Mustardseed:

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.

You wrote: Do I understand you say that the Bible is a work of fiction but not nessesarily a lie??

Fiction does not mean a "Lie."  Fiction is a "story."

According to Webster's Dictionary, to LIE is 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression: to bring about by telling lies

You wrote: I believe that the words are ALIVE and changes and transforms in whatever language or mind they appear.

I agree.  While words are not sentient and therefore cannot defend themselves or clarify themselves, they are "alive" in the sense that through their use, LIFE can be described and recorded.  Fiction "describes."  

On Robert's statement:  

"Historical Proof" requires many things.  Today, we have driver's licenses, passports, credit cards, car registrations, etc., to "prove" who we are.  Oftentimes we are required to provide 2 forms of identification.  This to show that we possess evidence that we are who we say we are.  In order to insure that a historical record is kept, we periodically fill out a "census" that records and provides a "history" of who is who and where they were at the time the census was taken.

"Proving" that certain events took place, has always been an extremely difficult thing to accomplish.  Even today, with all of our technologies, we still require DNA testing to show "absolute" proof.  However, even the results of "tests" can be altered through the paperwork.  SO..."proof" of anything is NOT a simple matter. A large scale current example of this is Weapons of Mass Destruction. A much smaller scale is the everyday disagreement of who said what to whom.  You know, "But you said ...."  "No...that is NOT what I said" etc.

Now, to "prove" that certain people really existed and that certain "events" really happened hundred of years in the past, or even decades for that matter, we require the same kind of proofs.  While they are very old and fragile, we are very fortunate to have a good many ancient documents. These documents are very informative about the way people lived a long time ago. But despite the fact that in ancient times they too required a periodic "census" (even the Bible speaks of this) there is no evidence that any of the people in the Bible ever existed by these names.  We have censuses from a lot of different ancient sources.  We also have ancient written records that account for many things--anywhere from military activities to shipping laden records.  What we do not have, outside of the bible, are records from any other source to verify that the events as contained therein really happened.  What makes this necessary is that we do have other records from that same time period, but these records mention NOTHING about biblical events.  Yes, there was turmoil.  Yes, there were religious persecutions. We have records of those.  But we do not have records of specifics that match those in the Bible.      

On the texts that you list:

Your list of ancient documents is just fine.  As a matter of fact, I know of some that you did not list.  However, as your list states, the earliest text that we have is in the Ryland collection, dated circa 130 c.e. Yes, this is a "very small" fragment, but it's date only proves that the actual verses had already been written in 130.

Neither Robert nor I are making the claim that ancient texts do not exist.  Of course they existed. To claim otherwise would be absurd.  But just the mere existence of these ancient texts does not prove that they contain historical facts.  It only proves a history that the texts existed—not the actual content of the texts.  Where Robert made his error was with this next statement:  "The earliest historical evidence of christianity and the bible are a few late-third century 'fingernail sized' fragments that historians consider could 'possibly' be fragments of a very early version of the bible "  This, he did get wrong, dates and wording.  But in the context of what he is saying overall, his point (I think anyway) is that the historical claims made in the NT were not only recorded after the fact, but much later after the fact. But (like I said above) there are no other supporting documents from any other source to verify any of these accounts as historical.  

Okay. On Josephus Flavius: I am very familiar.  If you will read your post again, you will see that to avoid "capture" or "death," Josephus "surrendered" to the Romans.  The only reason that he even survived this ordeal was because he had a dream that came true. The work that you speak of, Jewish Antiquities was written by a Jew for Jews.  So were the NT scriptures. It was also his agenda to preserve the Jewish way of thinking--which in part is also reflected in the NT.  While he did mention Jesus as this quote shows, his main focus was on other Jewish things.  His mention of Jesus was actually a relatively small part of all that he wrote. His primary focus was on the events during and after 70 c.e. when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem.  According to him, this was a much bigger deal for the Jews. BUT—here again, we do not have substantiating evidence from any other source that verifies that everything that Josephus says is true.  If things really happened as Josephus (and/or the NT) state, we should most especially have something from the Roman records that we have that would substantiate these claims. But we do not.

In the quote by Eusebius (the early 4th century Christian Bishop that you mention) first please note the entire sentence: It was during this timeframe that Jesus lived, a wise man, if anyone could really call him a man.  This quote is very important because, during Eusebius' day (4th century) it was being "hotly argued" as to the nature of who/what Jesus was. No one knew for sure. These are the elements of the basic argument made very simple: 1) was Jesus born part human and part deity, 2) did he become a deity later in life, or 3) was he ever really human at all.  This was a very big controversy, and brought with it a great deal of problematic implications. It never was (and still isn't) definitively agreed upon.  As to the rest of Eusebius' quote, he is just paraphrasing from the gospel accounts that we have already established existed by the 4th century.


You wrote:  Is this acceptable as historical evidence or do you believe it to be flawed. Please explain.

I will summarize:  All of this is historical evidence that documents existed that tell of certain events.  But—these documents do not provide historical evidence that the events actually happened.  For example, we have written texts that predate the 1st century.  These documents speak of the Greek pantheon, e.g., Zeus, Hera, Athena, etc.  The mere existence of these texts, do not prove that Zeus and Hera ever really existed.  Does this make sense?  

Finally, you wrote:  "And by the way how do you account for the prophesies that are fulfilled even to this day. does that not infer Divine presence and guidance??"  

I do not recall ever making the claim that the Divine is not present among us.  As a matter of fact, I have posted exactly the opposite.  

[shadowdancer]

Very patient and lucid post Beth, kudos [] If i may ask a question though?  you made referrence to a comment that you made previously about the bible being a work of "fiction", in marked contrast to the idea that it is a "lie".  after you have given us the common dictionary definition of those two terms, I really wonder if the term "lie" is more appropriate that "fiction".  This is for the NT cannon only.  I feel that the OT and related Semitic works contain esoteric stories that contain a people's heritage of mystery wisdoms.  The reasoning behind my questioning of the term lie being more applicable to the NT cannon is really based on what i know of the Nicea council.  From what i understand, this was convocation of leading priests and bishops that came together to create the NT.  in essence creating a mythos of the man named jesus, specifically for purposes of deception and control of the general populus.  many gnostic texts of varying schools where circulating within the region and the Romanized Church was looking for a way to really consolidate and solidify its power base.  During that time many gnostic texts and schools were dubbed "heretics" and not of the "orthodoxy".  interestingly enough, many of the works that were subsequently banned were texts dealing with the INNER nature of PERSONAL SALVATION....so my questions is, can you help to illuminate the nature of the Nicea Council, what it was really for, either confirming what i understand to be a relative historical fact, or let me know what i have received that is incorrect about this important event in western religious history.  thank you again for your lucid and thoughtful sharing of your knowledge

[Mustardseed]

Thankyou Beth
For once I understood your post after reading it only once. Ha Shows more about me than you[:I] Well I would say that in view of the above I am satisfied. I as you might have read earlier do not put a lot of importance on the historical conclusive evidence. All I wanted to say and stand up for was this. The Bible as we know it now and Jesus's story life death and resurection, could be true!! We as Christians might not have "hard" evidence (the door plate of his house, his old shoes or his mothers diary with kodak snapshots of him growing up ) but there is a amount of circumstansial evidence (learned that term from TV shows[] ) that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. No one else has proof that it did not. This once again makes Faith in the Bible and Jesus a choice. All we have is Ancient manuscripts, accounting the story of a man who claimed to be the Son of God (however we put it) who went around and seem to have done some pretty amazing things and even rose from the dead, and it is then up to each individual if they will believe in them or not. Right !

I am very happy that you had the guts to correct Roberts statement and qualify it a bit and thanks for clearing up these things I will study it some more . Did you by the way look up the words Forever "aeon" and the difference between Hades Gehenna and sheol. I fould that very facinating as I am a believer in the Christian "doctrine of Reconsilliation".

Regards Mustardseed

[exothen]

Beth,

quote:But despite the fact that in ancient times they too required a periodic "census" (even the Bible speaks of this) there is no evidence that any of the people in the Bible ever existed by these names. We have censuses from a lot of different ancient sources. We also have ancient written records that account for many things--anywhere from military activities to shipping laden records. What we do not have, outside of the bible, are records from any other source to verify that the events as contained therein really happened.

This simply is not true.  There are names and places of things in the Bible for which archaeology has accounted for, even things which for decades were denied by archaeologists to exist.  There may not be documents that have been found, something I will check into, but certainly numerous other artifacts have been found that do verify people and places.

quote:But in the context of what he is saying overall, his point (I think anyway) is that the historical claims made in the NT were not only recorded after the fact, but much later after the fact.

I fail to see how 20 to 30 years is "much later after the fact."  That is not even one generation after Jesus's death and there would have been many people still alive that could have verified what was stated in the Bible.  There is even evidence within the Bible that some of it is quoting from early Christian creeds from between 30-50 AD.

quote:While he did mention Jesus as this quote shows, his main focus was on other Jewish things. His mention of Jesus was actually a relatively small part of all that he wrote. His primary focus was on the events during and after 70 c.e. when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem.

First, why are you downplaying the fact that Jesus was mentioned?  Regardless of Josephus's purpose for writing, the fact remains that he did mention Jesus.  Second, it is quite ironic that you mention this since in Mark 13:2 Jesus predicted/prophecied that the destruction of the temple would occur, and to the extent that the stones would not be left on top of one another.  Mark was likely written in the 50s or early 60s before the destruction of the temple.

quote: BUT—here again, we do not have substantiating evidence from any other source that verifies that everything that Josephus says is true.

At what point then would there ever be enough evidence?  Do we need substantiating evidence to substatiate substantiating evidence, and on, and on,...?

quote:If things really happened as Josephus (and/or the NT) state, we should most especially have something from the Roman records that we have that would substantiate these claims. But we do not.

And the Romans persecuted the Christians for 300 years.  Were the Romans even interested in Christ's message?  Not likely.  Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was predominantly Jewish to start with, so one would expect any writings of him to come mainly from Jewish sources.

[Beth]

Tab:

quote:Actually I would think this biblical quote DISPROVES your thinking altogether instead of vice-versa. It is stating that God's breath contained man's soul in it, that man's soul did exist before it became a physical being but it existed within and as a part of God.

Well done Tab!  I like it![]

[Beth]

exothen:

quote:This simply is not true. There are names and places of things in the Bible for which archaeology has accounted for, even things which for decades were denied by archaeologists to exist...certainly numerous other artifacts have been found that do verify people and places

What and who?  I know of no such proof.  

quote:I fail to see how 20 to 30 years is "much later after the fact."

20-30 years is NOT that long--BUT that still does not PROVE the fragment to be HISTORICAL.  It ONLY proved that the verses had been written by then.   A LOT of ancient documents were written during that period.  And luckily we have recovered some of them. The Dead Sea Scrolls even pre-date Christianity, and they tell us a lot about this particular ancient Jewish sect than we have ever known before.  BUT--once again, they have yet to be verified by other sources.  How many "other sources" do we need?  Enough to put together a reasonable "whole picture" that shows both sides of the "history."  Archaeologists are excavating more and more ancient artifacts every year.  We may eventually find substantiating evidence, but as yet--we have not.

quote:First, why are you downplaying the fact that Jesus was mentioned? Regardless of Josephus's purpose for writing, the fact remains that he did mention Jesus.

 
I am not downplaying it--I am only saying that it was NOT that big of a deal in the big scheme of things during the first century.  Plus--even then it was just a rumor--not fact.  

quote:Mark 13:2 Jesus predicted/prophecied that the destruction of the temple would occur, and to the extent that the stones would not be left on top of one another. Mark was likely written in the 50s or early 60s before the destruction of the temple.

Mark was "likely" written previous to the destruction of the temple?  "Likely" is okay for a theory, but not good enough to establish historical proof.  Plus, we do not have any fragments from a book of Mark that we can test for dating.  All we have is a theory that all four Gospels are thought to have been written from a now lost book that had kept a record the many things that Jesus is said to have done.  Scholar's call this the Book of Q.  But--we do not have it--not even a fragment of it. Further, this now lost book is just a speculation, to help explain how the four different gospels came about their info. ALL ancient COPIES of Mark are dated AFTER 70 c.e. and could have very easily been written so that the prophecy matched history.

quote:And the Romans persecuted the Christians for 300 years. Were the Romans even interested in Christ's message? Not likely.

.
True--BUT if the events of the first century were that much of a BIG deal...then don't you think they would have boasted about their conquer?  Additionally, it was the Romans who eventually assured the survival of Christianity.  That IS historical--but that did not happen until 325 forward.

Now, more importantly,  

quote:Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was predominantly Jewish to start with, so one would expect any writings of him to come mainly from Jewish sources

 
Yes--and we ONLY have Josephus. None of the other rabbincal material verifies these claims.  But this is NOT surprising.  If the stories ran counter to the main belief at the time, what would be the advantage of recording it?  And isn't that the whole controversy?  Wasn't it Pilot (a Roman) who according to the gospels couldn't find Jesus guilty of anything?  Wasn't it the Jews that supposedly crucified their own?  

[Beth]

To everyone in general:

All of this controversy is NOT a new problem.  This problem is as old as the religion itself.

Looking back from our perspective--or even the perspective of a few hundred years, we are seeing 3 distinct groups--the Jews, the Christians and the Romans.  But, there were NOT 3 distinct groups at the time.  Biblically speaking, it was just the Jews and the Romans (and the Greeks, but we won't go there here.)  We have no accountable evidence from either of these parties, that substantiate the BOLD claims that the Gospels make.  AND--I have found in my research that the gospels were NOT trying to make historical claims at all.  There were trying to preserve the mysteries of their "Jewish" religion.  When people started taking the gospels as "historical fact" it NEVER DID hold water. During, and previous to, the 1st century the same problem existed for Jews who tried to claim the OT as "history."  The Greeks were all over the Jews to get them to "prove" that their scriptures were "historical." So this same argument even predates Christianity. Most of the ancient Jewish writers that we have records from, tried to "explain" that this was not the case anyway. But some people have a way of not listening to reason.  The scripture was written to provide the people with a pseudo-history that they could use to bind them together and preserve the inner-workings of their belief.  This was very important to insure the cohesion of all tribal groups. Myths, or stories, were ALWAYS used to do so.  But just like with Zeus, Hera, Athena and the whole Greek pantheon, these stories were NEVER proven to be historical.  What all of these ancient stories prove is that people have been believing in a higher power(s) for as long as we have history recorded.  There are many ancient cultures that wrote their own stories about events that were shared by all.  For example, there are several different versions of "a massive flood story."  But each one of them is different, and each one of them claim the power of their own Gods in the flood.  BUT--geologists and those who study ancient earth activities, have yet to find evidence of a flood that massive that could be dated by the biblical account.

There is SO much more that must be taken into consideration when trying to reconstruct 1st century events (and earlier.)  Today's scholarship is pumping out pieces to this puzzle every day.  But--we are NOT coming up with the NT as being "historical."  It is about God--no doubt--but it is a construction of a belief system ABOUT God. NOT HISTORY.

We are all educated today.  And you do not have to have a PhD to read.  We have more information available today than ever before--use it to your advantage--do your own research.  Everyone of you know how to use a computer.  Use it.  I stongly encourage it.  Search the internet--Learn of these things.  Find a good History link and go read about ancient history.  Yes, you will find the development of Christianity IN history, but you will also find a lot more.     Check out the history of your religion.  Don't you want to know everything about the religion that you have made a life-long pledge to?  Then, if you have any questions, and I think I may be able to help, I will be more than glad to do so!![]

If, on the other hand, you are not interested in learning more and you believe that the Church has already told you everything that there is to know, then fine.  Believe them. Don't learn more.  But DON'T make the claim that that is all there is know about it, when that is just not the case.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth
I first wanna say that I thank you for your posts . I have read them several times and allthough I felt thought I understood I am, now suddenly close to being drawn into your world of argument reasoning and non absolutes. First you say one thing and next something else. I dont know what to think. Your posts seem continually to be very vaque and insinuating. I have tried to adapt the attitude that, OK if you dont wanna believe in Jesus thats up to you. Your posts seem however to be bent on destroying the Christian faith, but I dont think that could be the case. ( I wanna understand this)

(You said) The scripture was written to provide the people with a pseudo-history that they could use to bind them together and preserve the inner-workings of their belief

You no longer guess, you state and want to be believed as a authority. You  seem "unreasonable in opposition" . I get the impression you are not interested in leaving it at "its all by faith" but wanna prove, or attempt to prove, the Bible false.!!!Very disheartening to me. I do not know why. If you please may I ask you to answer me clearly, was Robert categorically wrong in his statements, and is, there a vast more prolific body of evidence to substantiate the claim that the Bible could be a valid document, much more than a  "fingernail sized scrap of paper"  Thoose were unsubstantiated claims. Will you support them or as a true scholar refute them. Will you go face to face with him and say " listen here Rob that was not fair or right" or will you excuse him and say "i understant what you mean." I also do not "believe".

Will you be fair and honest or Biased

Regards Mustardseed

[Narrow Path]

quote:We are all educated today. And you do not have to have a PhD to read. We have more information available today than ever before--use it to your advantage--do your own research. Everyone of you know how to use a computer. Use it. I stongly encourage it. Search the internet--Learn of these things. Find a good History link and go read about ancient history. Yes, you will find the development of Christianity IN history, but you will also find a lot more. Check out the history of your religion. Don't you want to know everything about the religion that you have made a life-long pledge to? Then, if you have any questions, and I think I may be able to help, I will be more than glad to do so!!

If, on the other hand, you are not interested in learning more and you believe that the Church has already told you everything that there is to know, then fine. Believe them. Don't learn more. But DON'T make the claim that that is all there is know about it, when that is just not the case.

Beth,

Very simple question for you, ok???[][B)][^][!][8D][xx(]

Dont get hurt feelers or anything. I am very serious on this and if I am to bask in the Gnosis of your posts I first just need one nagging question dealt with. After that I will leave you alone and have a better understanding of what you are doing here.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST AS AN ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENT? AS A MIRACLE AND AN ACT OF GOD'S DIVINE LOVE?

That is all I need to know and I will leave you be from here on out. No need to debate or throw in references to mystic cajun buckshot or what not.

Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ physically?

Yes?
No?

Thank You

[Robert Bruce]

Dear Mustardseed,

I have already explained my reasoning (a number of times) regarding my earlier statement that changed the direction of this thread, and have freely admitted that it may not have been entirely accurate in a historical sense.  (Do you research and reference every post you make? Does anyone?) But I think it was still a fair comment to throw into the proverbial pot. And you must admit that it had the desired effect.  I note that you commented on this in a very understanding way in an earlier post. Thank you for that.

But now you state that I made an outrageous claim and seem to be demanding absolute proof one way or the other from Beth.  I could ask the same of you regarding the largely circumstantial evidence that has been offered herein to support the 'historical events' depicted in the NT.

I say again, my earlier statements were in regard to the existance of actual proof of the "historical events' depicted in the NT. They had 'nothing' whatsoever to do with the divine truth or spiritual implications and worth of the NT as a holy book.

One of Beth's earlier comments says it all, regarding my earlier statements.

---------------------------------------
 "Neither Robert nor I are making the claim that ancient texts do not exist. Of course they existed. To claim otherwise would be absurd. But just the mere existence of these ancient texts does not prove that they contain historical facts. It only proves a history that the texts existed—not the actual content of the texts. Where Robert made his error was with this next statement: "The earliest historical evidence of christianity and the bible are a few late-third century 'fingernail sized' fragments that historians consider could 'possibly' be fragments of a very early version of the bible " This, he did get wrong, dates and wording. But in the context of what he is saying overall, his point (I think anyway) is that the historical claims made in the NT were not only recorded after the fact, but much later after the fact. But (like I said above) there are no other supporting documents from any other source to verify any of these accounts as historical."
------------------------------------------

Mustardseed, I also note a derisive change of tone in your last post towards Beth. Your accusations are not very understanding or charitable and some of your statements are openly disrespectful and could even be taken as insulting. In essence, you seem to be demanding that Beth posts an accurate, highly-structured and fully-referenced book on these matters in a single post. But such a book has not been written, not yet anyway. Beth is posting as accurately and fairly as she can on extremely complex topics. Please be more understanding so as not to make her task needlessly difficult.

The whole idea of the thread on early christianity is to examine and discuss the origins of the NT and the foundations of christianity, particularly early christianity. If you find this exploration disconcerting and would rather stick to personal faith-based belief, fine; that's okay.  But please understand that that topic is not for discussing matters of personal faith and belief.

If anyone takes issue with anything Beth posts, please make your point clear so it can be discussed, rather than just making general and/or personal comments that you don't like the way the discussion is unfolding, etc. This will be much more productive.  

Also, once again, please do not think that thread is aimed at debunking the bible and christianity. This is not and never was its purpose. I am amazed that so many people appear to feel so threatened by the content of this thread.

If you read Beth's posts in that thread carefully, you'll actually find that much deeper spiritual meaning is being applied to the NT and christianity in general; much more than currently exists.

Threads on the Astral Pulse should be looked upon as one might look upon the books in a library. Take out and review and discuss whatever books you like with likeminded people. But please leave the books that don't appeal to you on the shelf unread.


Take care, Robert.

[Narrow Path]

Being as most here have experience with projection I have a challenge for you to try if you feel the need. If not that is fine. No hurtful replies are needed.

First ask the Holy Spirit to be your "guide" on this adventure. Get in your usual meditative posture or lay down on your bed. Whatever works for you.

As you "leave" your body try to go to the time and place of the crucifixtion. Use your imagination to feel, hear, taste, smell the surroundings and the people, animals that may be present. As you begin to settle in the enviroment focus your attention on Christ as He carries the Cross to the summot on the hill. Picture His eyes and the Way the burden is dealt with. See Him being pounded to the Cross and the blood as it flows like Holy Water. I suggest a reading of the Gospels for some of the dialog as well. Use your imagination and your hearts as you try to "understand" why so many choose to place this as the most important Act that has ever occurred in the History of the Universe.

If you feel any success with this technique I urge you to place your mind now at the Victory and Resurrection of Christ as He conquers death itself. Pay attention to the details of His physical body and keep your hearts open to what you may find.

Once again if you dont want to take this challenge that is fine. I am sure many here far surpass my abilities to project and I am curious as to the end result of placing your faith in an experience such as this.

Do you feel, Love, Hope, Peace?

Or detachment, sadness and dispair?

I am seriously curious on this matter so only those that have an open mind respond please!!

If you disagree here fine but no need for debate here or conflict.

Just the end result of the projection and the challenge.

Thank You and God Bless.

[GTP]

Wow, this is a huge thread, I have not read it all but would just like to throw in my two cents.

Background:

I am Christian and practice OBE's. I don't know if they are dangerous or not, but I have a passion for exploring the unknown, so I will continue to study and induce OBE's along with Bible study and prayer.

It saddens me to see so much arrogance on both sides of the issue. The unbelievers talk like they are 100% postive that OBE's are not a deception from satan. You don't know for sure, don't act like you do. We (projectors, including me) could be playing with fire here and not even know it!

And Allanon, you act like you know 100% without a doubt that OBE's are dangerous for non-christians to practice. They could have nothing to do with satan or evil at all! They could be visions from God.

You said:

"All this projection and letting go of your mind just allows the Devil to get a stranglehold on your soul"

Where is the Biblical support for this?

[GTP]

Allanon you also said "pray don't meditate". People in Biblical times including Jesus himself meditated. The word "meditate" is mentioned frequently in the Bible.[]

[Mustardseed]

Dear Robert and Beth
I apologise about that post, and any hostility,let me explain my point again. You have read my posts and I would say that I have been fair in my statements! I never said anything else than this :

The Bible is believed by faith. It is alive and and inspired by the Spirit of God. . It could have happened the way the Bible states and while I have no proof it did I have a mass of manuscripts all interwoven claiming that it did. I furthermore have secular sources stating to the historical Jesus. His life death ressurection etc. Therefore my faith is not built on mere assumptions "fingernail size scraps" but on a pretty good body of circumstantial evidence. It could be true. Thats all.

This was and still is to me the point and the discussion. I do find that now the thread is changing again and instead of Beth and yourself agreeing with me on this you want to dig deeper. I find that problematic and a changing of the focus. It seems to me that your belief system and Beths reasearch is built on your faith. or assumption, that the Bible and the claims in it "are not nessesarily so". In my opinion you work backward, saying (maybe not consiosly "now that we have agreed we do not want to acknowledge that the Bible COULD be true how can we explain it all away". Becourse if the Bible was true you would as seekers of the truth have to include it in your considerations`  your life and ministry, and you (in my view) it is a possibility you do not WANT to do that, becourse it contains ABSOLUTE TRUTHS!!!I find that you are also contradicting yourself or maybe we could call it being somewhat hypocritical, in on one hand making a value judgement on the scriptures, expecting proof of the Bible while on the other hand facilitating the prolification of all sorts of other things including folks who are channelling statements from a race of aliens from the Pleaideans, telling folks on earth how they should live their life and kill their pets (go figure!!!) Carlos Castaneda a self proclaimed fantasy writer etc. It seems that Proving things becomes only important when it is things YOU do not want to accept as possibilities. I have a similar question to you why is the Bible singled out? I know that you will say becourse of Bible bashing but we both know that Narrow paths behaviour is not supportable in the Bible

Robert I have on more occations that one streched forth my hand and said let us just agree to disagree, right? It is not my desire to keep this contention up . I have the highest regard for you both and will try to keep it more on a sober note.

Regards Mustardseed

[Narrow Path]

GTP,

Astral projection without the Word leads to the false notion of immoratality of the soul.

Meditation on the WORD and Jesus is what we need to focus on as Christians. Clearing your mind completely can lead to some scary stuff. Almost as scary as a gallon of milk left out overnight.

[exothen]

Beth,

quote:We are all educated today. And you do not have to have a PhD to read. We have more information available today than ever before--use it to your advantage--do your own research. Everyone of you know how to use a computer. Use it. I stongly encourage it. Search the internet--Learn of these things. Find a good History link and go read about ancient history. Yes, you will find the development of Christianity IN history, but you will also find a lot more.

Have you done a search on "biblical archaeology"?  

Has anyone done a search on "biblical archaeology"?

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path

GTP,

Astral projection without the Word leads to the false notion of immoratality of the soul.

Meditation on the WORD and Jesus is what we need to focus on as Christians. Clearing your mind completely can lead to some scary stuff. Almost as scary as a gallon of milk left out overnight.

That post reminds me of my uncle's words on yoga "I do yoga with Jesus' seed in my heart. Of course the Buddhists created yoga but they could never be complete in their yoga because they were not practicing with Jesus at the center."

Pretty funny stuff [^]