Christianity & O.T.: Royce's Questions on Jesus & Genesis

[Phobos]

This post by Royce reminded me of a few questions...

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2556

I think that you are confusioning as most do Christianity with Judism, the Old Testament with the New Testament. I have the same problems with the O.T. God, but have no problems with the teachings of Christ. IMO far too many Christian churches dwell on the O.T. because they can shout fire and brimstone at their congregations. This is one of the many reasons I don't go to church.

I am reading the Bible, but I'm no where near the N.T. yet (up to the 6th book so far). Can someone spoil the suspense and tell me how much does the N.T. refer back to the O.T.? And why do so many Christians (who should draw from the N.T., I would think) focus so much on the O.T. (which pertains more to Jewish tradition)?

I often engage in the Creation-Evolution debate and I'm still a little surprised to see how much a Christian (yeah, I know...only certain Christians) can focus on what amounts to the first two pages of the O.T. Does Jesus refer back to Genesis in his teachings? I have heard (but not yet read) that he refers back to some parts of the O.T.

Of course the Bible is an edited compilation of works and it's not clear to me how much they connect and how much the N.T. relies on the O.T. as background support (other than the obvious descriptions of God-the-Father's nature).

 

[Tog_Neve]

Phobos,

As far as reflection of the NT to the OT. Well there are several quotes of Jesus into the OT. Some refer to prophecies of the coming of Christ. Then there is also a few quotes of some of the teachings and such. "You have heard it said an eye for an eye..." There are many things such as this.

There is also a deeper meaning in some of what Christ says. He points out how the Jewish people of the time have basically been bogged down in tradition and have lost the faith. They are listening more to the traditions than to God.

Phobos one thing to look for while reading the Bible is an underlying theme. Trust God. It all started in the beginning. Adam and Eve were to trust God and God's judgement of what is good and what is evil. When they first ate of the fruit they put their judgement of what is good and evil above that of God...they basically no longer trusted God. Cain and Abel. Cain had lost his trust in God. Instead of giving unto God the best he had he thought it better to keep it for himself. All throughout the OT there is times when the Israelites are instructed to trust in God...and when they do it is good times had by all...but when they do not...tragedy befalls them.

I too am doing a study of the Bible. I have just gotten to chapter 6 of Genesis myself and have filled up almost 2 notebooks of notes and material in about 6 months of work. And already I have seen the implication of trust desired by God. And the rejection of that by man. Already understanding that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a misnoemer...perhaps slight mistranslation. Instead of knowledge it is the step that allowed man to decide to define his own good and evil. This is supported by the idea of their nakedness... Once they ate they saw they were naked and covered themselves, implying that this was evil. However God had them running through the garden before then naked and it was not evil. God would not have them doing evil things. So their nakedness was a self prescribed evil. God even asks them "Who said you were naked?" And of course the answer would have to be "I did". Once again man before God. This becomes a common theme throughout in which man puts his own judgement before that of God's.

I would urge any reader who is honestly out to study the Bible to do just that. Put away all preconceptions and to start from the beginning and sit and take notes. Write down what you think of each verse or set of verses. But also look at it from the aspect of the religion...meaning that when they talk about a 6 day creation just look at it as what it says. The primary reason for the notes is that it gets you to remember things that happened better...so that when you read something later it may click that it sounded similar to something that already happened and such.

Tog

 

[kyle_soule]

Hmmmm...the Old Testament is the foundation of Christianity, kinda the history I suppose, to skip over it completely would be foolish. I would read it, and remember it is pre-Jesus and a lot of it doesn't apply anymore. Just remember the most important thing, God hates you That will be in the O.T., but Jesus loves you. Or so they say.

If you are really studying the Bible in depth, and are afraid of missing references to the OT in the NT I would recommend a program like http://www.bibleriver.com/ [Broken]. It has the option to have 'sticky notes' pop up with the Bible verse, makes for much easier referencing. It also has scholar's notes, and many many different versions of the Bible:

King James 1611
King James with Strong's Numbers
American Standard 1917
Darby's Modern Translation
Young's Literal Translation
Douay Rheims (Catholic) 1899
Webster's Translation 1611
Weymouth NT Translation
World English Bible
Basic English

are just a few. You can also download a Greek Lexicon, sometimes words are lost in translation. Anyways, I hope I helped.

Screenshots at http://www.bibleriver.com/screenshots/ [Broken]:

http://www.bibleriver.com/screenshots/Images/Full/mainview.gif [Broken]

 

[Phobos]

Thanks Tog & Kyle. Food for thought.

(2 notebooks on the first 6 chapters? egad.)

and remember it is pre-Jesus and a lot of it doesn't apply anymore.

Seriously? Along the lines of "traditions vs. principles" you mean? Or does Jesus redefine some of the commandments in the O.T.? (I don't mean the 10 Commandments...I mean the dozens/hundreds of other instructions from God listed in the O.T.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Phobos
Thanks Tog & Kyle. Food for thought.

(2 notebooks on the first 6 chapters? egad.)



Seriously? Along the lines of "traditions vs. principles" you mean? Or does Jesus redefine some of the commandments in the O.T.? (I don't mean the 10 Commandments...I mean the dozens/hundreds of other instructions from God listed in the O.T.

Well, certain things such as the 10 commandments, don't really apply. Another obvious would be you don't have to be perfect to get to Heaven, etc. Things along those lines.

Another thing, as I said, God "can" hate you, he has said he hates people before in the Bible. That was OT, he can no longer hate you because of Jesus. You get the idea.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Zero

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum

No actually just to darned busy at work nowdays...
And no it is not a logical fallacy...nor is it the same. In this instance Hussein has been proven to have them...as of 1998 there were still amounts of chem and bio agents that were inventoried but not yet destroyed. He was directed by resolution 687 to have them destroyed under the supervision of the UN. He claimed that they were destroyed. It is up to him to provide that proof...since he was to destroy them under supervision of the UN. There is no fallacy in that. Res 687 states clearly what Iraq is to do with its agents. Distroy, dismantle, render inert, all under the supervision of the UN. Res 1441 reinforced the statements that basically unless proven otherwise it would be assumed that he has not continued the process after 1998 and gave him 30 days to provide up to date and accurate accounting of what was left. He failed on that as well...his report was proven to not be credible...there were things on there that were not on original listings from early 90's, there were things on there that were already destroyed by UN. It had to many errors to be deemed credible. So he failed in providing the information set forth by UN (big surprise there).

 

[megashawn]

^^^Hey, wrong thread perhaps?^^^

Tog

Once they ate they saw they were naked and covered themselves, implying that this was evil. However God had them running through the garden before then naked and it was not evil. God would not have them doing evil things. So their nakedness was a self prescribed evil. God even asks them "Who said you were naked?" And of course the answer would have to be "I did". Once again man before God.

So this implies that mankind was intended to be "naked". If you look around the world today, you will see many people of different beliefs who are not worried about being naked. They do not think it is evil.

My point here is, if Adam and Eve took good and evil into there own hands, why is it there are people who still live as they supposedly did?

And my other question to this is doesn't anyone ever wonder what the world would be like had Adam and Eve not sinned?

I'd speculate, it would still be Adam and Eve.

That is of course, after swallowing the lies and other atrocitys.

I know you all our discussing the bible here, but the questions seem relevant to what Tog was saying.

 

[Tog_Neve]

Megashawn

So this implies that mankind was intended to be "naked". If you look around the world today, you will see many people of different beliefs who are not worried about being naked. They do not think it is evil.

Man was created naked. Man walked in the garden naked. In God's eyes being naked was not evil nor sinful. And think of this... Are not most people embarrassed if "caught" naked? Or unwilling because of shyness or bashfulness to run around naked? All of those feelings are basically "self" oriented feelings. You would not drive into work naked because it would embarass your co-workers but you. And this goes back to the Bible in that it was Adam and Eve who first stated they were naked. It was A&E who first decided that being naked was "evil".

My point here is, if Adam and Eve took good and evil into there own hands, why is it there are people who still live as they supposedly did?

There is no one who lives as Adam and Eve did...because they live in this world. They are bound by the laws that man has created since. There was but one spoken law for A&E...dont eat the fruit.

And my other question to this is doesn't anyone ever wonder what the world would be like had Adam and Eve not sinned?

I'd speculate, it would still be Adam and Eve.

Yes often I do actually. I think A&E would have procreated though. And I think man would still have fallen...maybe by different actions though.

Tog

 

[Laser Eyes]

Wow Phobos. Are you really reading the whole Bible from beginning to end? That's a major undertaking! Some people have difficulty understanding it reading like that. But if you want to read the books of the Bible one after the other from the beginning then go for it. If you have any questions along the way post them here.

To answer your questions above there are many references in the N.T. to the O.T. Jesus often referred to the O.T. when he was teaching. He usually said something like "It is written ..." and then quoted a scripture from the O.T. For a couple of examples see Luke 19:46 where he referred to Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11; and see also John 8:17 where he referred to Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15. One of the reasons the religious leaders of the day hated him so much is that Jesus knew the Hebrew Scriptures better than they did!

The Bible is one whole interconnected book comprising both the O.T. and the N.T. One is not more important than the other. The Bible says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." When it says "all scripture" that's exactly what it means, both the O.T. and the N.T. It is also said in the Bible that the writers were lead by God's spirit so the real author of the Bible is God.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Wow Phobos. Are you really reading the whole Bible from beginning to end? That's a major undertaking!

I am, but I don't expect to be done anytime soon! (and I'm not taking detailed notes like Tog_Neve!)

Some people have difficulty understanding it reading like that. But if you want to read the books of the Bible one after the other from the beginning then go for it.

Seems to make the most sense to me. When I hear preaching/studies, there is a lot of jumping around from book to book and I would think that the context/meaning of a particular passage would be lost like that. Plus, it is giving a chronological history.

If you have any questions along the way post them here.

I certainly will.

One of the reasons the religious leaders of the day hated him so much is that Jesus knew the Hebrew Scriptures better than they did!

*L*

The Bible is one whole interconnected book comprising both the O.T. and the N.T. One is not more important than the other. The Bible says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." When it says "all scripture" that's exactly what it means, both the O.T. and the N.T.

Makes one wonder about the books/texts that were edited out doesn't it?

It is also said in the Bible that the writers were lead by God's spirit so the real author of the Bible is God.

Do you have that citation? (chapter/verse)

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Phobos
Seems to make the most sense to me. When I hear preaching/studies, there is a lot of jumping around from book to book and I would think that the context/meaning of a particular passage would be lost like that. Plus, it is giving a chronological history.

It would appear to make the most sense, but you must understand that the Bible was passed along by word-of-mouth for many years (writing things down back then wasn't done often). Later it was written down into a book, it has been edited after years of passing around (as one would expect) but the majority of it has stayed together and you would think resembles the original intended content.

Anyways, the order of the books were chosen by people in their logical order, to the person, not necessarily the REAL order, so to read it in order doesn't really mean it is going to flow in order. Don't let "IN THE BEGINNING" fool you into thinking the whole Bible follows the same logical order.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Do you have that citation? (chapter/verse)

"prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Timothy 1:21

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" - 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Phobos
. . . the Bible is an edited compilation of works and it's not clear to me how much they connect and how much the N.T. relies on the O.T. as background support (other than the obvious descriptions of God-the-Father's nature).

Besides studying the Bible and interpreting it from a theological or religious point of view, one can also study it objectively as history and cultural anthropology. In universities, in fact, serious religious studies is very much linked to historical and archeological evidence, much of it aimed at trying to find out what really happened. I thought you might find it useful to have a sampling of this perspective on the Bible. I will divide this discussion into (more or less) the Old and New Testament, and then reading suggestions.

Old Testament

When you hear religious interpretation of the Bible, it is often done in ways to support theological doctrine. Take the supposed references to Jesus in the OT (some feel the term “Old” Testament is pejorative, and prefer “Hebrew Bible”). Those Hebrew Bible references were to a savior-type person, but the savior envisioned was a King David-like military leader to help kick Rome’s butt (or any other enemy that interfered with Jewish religious practices). This “messiah” was a wish, a dream of an oppressed people. Such prophesy, when shared by all the culture members, was like a group prayer, praying for deliverance.

It was, and is, Jewish custom to read the Hebrew Bible looking for any possible bit of wisdom that might be squeezed out of scripture. So the new Christians, the first of whom were Jews, had this habit in the time of Jesus, plus the whole culture had been praying for a savior. After Jesus, many applied this cultural practice again, but this time searching through Hebrew Bible scripture to support their claim that Jesus was the awaited messiah (in religious studies this practice is technically known as testimonia). But did the Hebrew Bible really refer to Jesus? Or did early Christians claim it trying to legitimatize Jesus to their fellow Jews?

Another example of looking at the Bible objectively is to recognize that some of the Hebrew Bible is myth. Adam and Eve has to be myth (who could have recorded their story?), and so where did the story come from? One might speculate relying on the habits of tribal peoples. For instance, we know that they would tell stories around the campfire, and in the absence of TV a good story teller was valued. Whatever the way the story was developed, it seems safe to say the Adam and Eve story is most likely how primitive peoples imagined it all. So while it is interesting as cultural anthropology, there is no reason to assume that primitive campfire stories (or whatever) say anything realistic about God or creation’s origin.

There is another type of myth too, and that is one developed from an actual event. The flood story, for example, appears to be just such a myth. It seems to have been derived from a catastrophic collapse in the Bosporus about 5000 years ago allowing water from the Mediterranean to flood into the Black Sea (see “Noah’s Flood” by two Ph.D. oceanographers Ryan and Pitman). This was not only myth in the Hebrew Bible, but earlier was part of the Gilgamesh story in Babylonia (and a little more history will explain the Jewish/Babylonia link as due to the 586 BC Babylonian captivity of the Jews).

Parts of the Hebrew Bible record events of the tribes and later the culture of Palestine. Some of it, such as the “wisdom literature” is poetry, reflections, and philosophical questions, and another part is the writings of the prophets. A most important part of the Hebrew Bible is the Law. The concept of the Law began with Moses, who may have had a genuine enlightenment-type of experience up on that mountain. From their experience with Moses, the Jews developed the concept of an agreement with God, a contract which if obeyed would garner God’s favor. So if things were going well, then they figured God was pleased, and if things were going badly, he was anrgy over them not obeying the Law properly.

Thus developed the obsession by the most fervent with Jewish Law. What started out as ten commandments eventually ended up as 633 precepts which the devout practiced. A study of the writing of the Law, all attributed to Moses, reveals very clearly there were several authors and redactors. Such textual analysis gets complicated, so I won’t go over that, but you are right to say there was editing early on. Today, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that after that original editing, the Hebrew Bible has remained essentially the same for the last 2000 years or so.

To sum up, the Hebrew Bible is very much a cultural text derived from history, myth, belief, and reflection. Its legalistic aspect also gives practitioners a precise guide for developing a relationship with God. (To answer one of your questions, personally I do not think there is any reference to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible.)

New Testament

The history of the New Testament is every bit as complex as the OT. None of the writers of the gospels (the first four books) are believed to have been eyewitness, and only Mark and Luke are believed to be who they claims to be. Matthew and John were names of Jesus’ disciples, but scholars (objective scholars, that is) don’t believe they were truly the authors. This was not always done to deceive; there was a Hebrew custom to attach a famous person’s name to a writing, as though saying they were writing in the same spirit the famous person would have. Mark and Luke were followers of Peter and Paul respectively, and not eyewitness.

The story of Jesus then, is believed to be gleaned from several sources including oral tradition, Mark’s account (which Matthew and Luke rely on), and an original source document known as “Q” which the first three gospels rely on. Two other important writers of the NT are Paul and the author of Revelation. Tradition has the book of Revelation written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of John, but textual analysis clearly reveals Revelation was written by someone else. (Personally I think the author of Revelation first fasted himself into hallucinating, and then used his delusional state to formulate a revenge-oriented curse. Why? Again history helps us, because in addition to Jesus’ execution, in 69 AD Rome flattened Jerusalem killing or pressing into slavery over 3 million Jews. It wasn’t until after WWII they were able to return in any significant numbers.)

Paul’s writing is the most historical (though some parts are considered forged). Paul was not an eyewitness either, at least to Jesus, but he was an eyewitness to the establishment of early Christianity because no one was more directly responsible for doing that than Paul. Although it didn’t make it into the “official” Bible, I also think the “Gospel of Thomas” is excellent; in fact, I believe it may be written by a disciple and the only true eyewitness to Jesus we have a record of.

To answer your overall question, Christians have relied on the OT partially to be able to use its prophesies to support theological claims about Jesus. The first Christians were Jews, and it was believed Jesus had come for them. So they did what was required, which was to make one's case through scripture. If not for Paul, who would visit synagoges and attempt this, it is unlikely Jesus would have been introduced to non-Jews. But their rejection of him, sometimes violently, led to him preaching to everyone who would listen. He also is responsible for defeating what some Christian Jews were insisting upon, which was that to be a Christian, one must first satisfy Jewish Law. Some of Pauls arguments against this, such as those found in his letter to the Galatians, are brilliant.

Suggested Reading

If you are interested in some introductory materials on the history of the Bible, there are some books around today helping to make the scholarship more interesting to lay readers. To name a few, “The New Testament” by Ehrman, “The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible,” edited by John Rogerson, “Moses – A Life” by Kirsch, “The Lost Gospel – The Book of Q & Christian Origins” by Mack, and “The Bible is History” by Ian Wilson. Interesting reading too is “The Oxford History of the Biblical World,” edited by Michael Coogan, and “Jesus Christ, the Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith” by Porter. For a general book on religious studies try, “The World’s Religions” by Ninian Smart.

I couldn’t end this without a plug for the only reason I took up religious studies, and that is what’s called Christian “mysticism.” It has nothing to do with magic or supernaturalism, but is about the practice by some Christians of a type of meditation they called “union prayer.” It is a very difficult subject to research, I’ve been at it 30 years so far (not just in Christianity, but worldwide).

I believe this meditation was taught by Jesus to his closest followers, and was continued by them after his death when they took up residence in caves in the deserts of Palestine and Egypt to practice it. Later they took it into the first monasteries, and there kept it alive for many centuries. Four introductory books on the subject I’d recommend are “The Desert Fathers” by Woddell, “The Gnostic Gospels” by Pagels, “Lost Christianity” by Needleman, and the classic work by Evelyn Underhill “Mysticism.”

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Phobos
This post by Royce reminded me of a few questions...

I am reading the Bible, but I'm no where near the N.T. yet (up to the 6th book so far). Can someone spoil the suspense and tell me how much does the N.T. refer back to the O.T.? And why do so many Christians (who should draw from the N.T., I would think) focus so much on the O.T. (which pertains more to Jewish tradition)?

I've seen these 2 sections used to describe a larger more cohesive picture. The old testament is largely about the tribulations of God's chosen people as they struggle to live according to the "law". These stories are littered with examples of how these chosen people failed miserably to live according to this law.

Then comes the NT introducing a saviour to save man of his sins. The spin is that it takes the experiences in the OT to convince man that he cannot save himself. All of this set up the arrival of the savior to show that the point of the OT wasn't about the "law". The lesson to be learned was about the nature of man.

I've seen this view before and I guess it's one way to look at it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen these 2 sections used to describe a larger more cohesive picture. The old testament is largely about the tribulations of God's chosen people as they struggle to live according to the "law". These stories are littered with examples of how these chosen people failed miserably to live according to this law.

Then comes the NT introducing a saviour to save man of his sins. The spin is that it takes the experiences in the OT to convince man that he cannot save himself. All of this set up the arrival of the savior to show that the point of the OT wasn't about the "law". The lesson to be learned was about the nature of man.

I've seen this view before and I guess it's one way to look at it.

They were also in a struggle for their survival too, against the elements and, to establish a national identity, in which case God has to come down as a bit harsh. And yet once established, perhaps it isn't necessary to go to "such extremes" in order to survive?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
They were also in a struggle for their survival too, against the elements and, to establish a national identity, in which case God has to come down as a bit harsh. And yet once established, perhaps it isn't necessary to go to "such extremes" in order to survive?

Well the tribulations and difficult times are necessary to test the character of man, which is the whole point of this view. I think this view is more poetic but has no more credibility than your proposal as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Phobos]

Thanks to everyone with the thoughtful responses...I'll have to digest all of this and throw some more questions your way.

 

[Phobos]

Feel free to keep the discussion going in the meantime!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Phobos
Feel free to keep the discussion going in the meantime!

Even though this is an area of real interest to me, I personally need your feedback to keep my part of it going. I seldom debate with people who want to do faith or religious things, but if you are interested in history and pre-history sorts of discussions, I 'd enjoy that.

 

[Royce]

I finally got around to reading this thread. I had no idea that it was a post of mine that started it. If you are interested at all I will explain why I feel the way I do.
While the old testament contains a lot of myth, legend and folk lore, IMO, there is a lot of truth, fact, history and wisdom to be gleaned from it. My objection was the the old testament God was wrathful, jealous, vindictive and mean.
So much blood was and has been shed in his name, so much fear and punishment and damnation was handed out by fire and brimstone preachers and so much of our humanity and sexuality was condemned and deemed sinful that I rebelled against it it my late teens.
I declared myself an athiest as far as the O.T. God was concerned and agnostic as far as any God/Creator was concerned. I admitted that I didn't know; but, that I refused to believe in a jealous wrathful bloodthirsty God that would condemn forever in burning hell an innocent baby or child just because of what some one may or may not have done thousands of years ago.
Even if there were such a God I would not worship him but, in my mind at least at that time, I would defy him and refuse to worship or honor such a God. If it were all true then I would rather roast in Hell than honor such a God. I knew that I would not be alone.
I then turned to Zen Buddhism and learned to meditate. I was able to get rid of much of my anger (at God and others) and hate and my eyes were opened. This took several years and I am still on that same jouney.
I started to study religion, all relions and their history as well as philosophy and dogma. I read the N.T. at least the Gospels and some of Paul's writings. My parents introduced me to The Urantia Book which I read. I started searching for where Hell damnation and the Devil came from. The only place that I could find this was from a Persian philosopher, Zoaster (sp). How his philosophy got into the Judo-christian religion I have never found out. The only reference that I could find for the concept of hell in the Gospels was about someone being cast into the eternal flaming pit and was consumed by the flame. This is not burning eternally in hell ruled by the devil.
Since then I have continued to read, meditate, contemplate and question. Many teachers in one form or another has come my way or me their way and I have learn a lot and grown a lot. I have in my mind, heart and soul developed my own philosopy and religion. I have reconciled science and religion and God and find no conflict.
I still have much to learn, unresolved conflicts and far yet to go in my journey to find my God and my true self and to know and be one with both. I know I am not alone in my journey as maney if not all of us are on our own journey down our own path. I also know that none of us are alone on our individual paths put are constantly led and guided. If we wander off the path and distracted for a while it matters not and in time we are gently led back to our path. If we faulter or fall be are picked up and if necessary carried for a while until we are strong enough to go on under our own power and will.
Again as always these are my personal beliefs and convictions. I can not prove any of this to you or anybody else nor will I try. I am not trying to convince you nor anybody nor convert you nor anybody. I am merely telling my story for what it may be worth to you.
You must find your own God and your own path to follow. The only place you will find him is within yourself. You have only to look and ask. This I know is true because I looked and asked. He came and I was told what I needed to know.

No I still not go to church nor will I. I do not need nor want the church nor does the church need or want me.

 

[megashawn]

You must find your own God and your own path to follow. The only place you will find him is within yourself. You have only to look and ask. This I know is true because I looked and asked. He came and I was told what I needed to know.

This makes me curious. If the only place you can find god is within oneself, then does that not make "god" a part of you?

This would seem to be the case. I guess one could say everyone is a part of god, but then I think we'd all be following the same path.

So, since we must find our own path and discover the god within, it seems that its farely safe to say one could merely rely on himself and his own ability to guide him.

I know this, unless you consider brainwaves and such to be of a spiritual nature, then I've not had a single encounter with a god/supernatural power that helped guide me.

And really, your every waking second influences your life. You could make a decision in 1 second that could ruin your life forever.

But I still like your brand of religion better. Any that does not get in the way of progress is not bad at all. My main problem is the ones that believe humans will/must be destroyed.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by megashawn
This makes me curious. If the only place you can find god is within oneself, then does that not make "god" a part of you?

Yes that's exactly what it means. It also means that you are part of God. I know some would disagree that this is the only place that you can find your God and I would not dispute it. I can only say what it says in the bible, seek God and he shall come. I can only see this as internal.

This would seem to be the case. I guess one could say everyone is a part of god, but then I think we'd all be following the same path.

We are all individuals at different stages of our lifes and development with different needs and character and personalities.
We therefore walk different paths and God will respond to us in different ways that we individuals can better relate to. This is why I say we have to find our own God and walk our own paths. There is one God who has many aspects, faces and names.

So, since we must find our own path and discover the god within, it seems that its farely safe to say one could merely rely on himself and his own ability to guide him.

I would say to rely on yourself to find God and accept his guidance it what you do. I seriously doubt that God will literally appear as a burning bush in front of you then take you hand and physically lead you around. He might, its possible but unlikely.

I know this, unless you consider brainwaves and such to be of a spiritual nature, then I've not had a single encounter with a god/supernatural power that helped guide me.

It takes calming you mind and quieting your thoughts and listening quietly. You should not hear voices nor see visions but just come to know that you know and are not alone. Look into your heart.
Years ago, I read a book entitled; "If you meet the Buddha on a street, kill it." This is saying the same thing. God, Buddha is found inside ourselves not outside in the form of another person or building. God may be there but it is not your personal God.

 

[megashawn]

I would say to rely on yourself to find God and accept his guidance it what you do. I seriously doubt that God will literally appear as a burning bush in front of you then take you hand and physically lead you around. He might, its possible but unlikely

When I think of things like the above, I'm thinking of that poem "footsteps".

Something about a man's life, and at the end, god reveals to him that where there were only one set of tracks, was where god was carrying him.

I've been in a pretty low place earlier in my life. I kept waiting for god to carry me through it, but nothing changed. It was not until I started making things happen for myself that my life changed around. Only when I quit waiting to be carried, and picked myself up. This is more what I meant earlier. Not so much that I'm relying on myself to find god, but I'm relying on myself to make it life what I want.

Good ideas though, I'd rather you be preaching then 99.999% of all the other churches and dogmas out there.

 

[Royce]

Maybe that's because I really hate to preach. I don't mind answering sincere questions. I try to answer them as sincerely and honestly as I can with the understanding that these are my thoughts and beliefs only. I know at times I do sound like a preacher but I can't help it when talking about these kind of questions; but, I still don't like it.

Maybe God knew that you had to rest awhile before you had the strength to get up and move on. I know that sounds trite and convienently covering all circumstances. I do think that things happen for a reason.

I've often told myself that neither sword nor plowshear can be made without fire, hammer and anvil. Guess where that puts us.

 

[Sourire]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve
Megashawn

Man was created naked. Man walked in the garden naked. In God's eyes being naked was not evil nor sinful. And think of this... Are not most people embarrassed if "caught" naked? Or unwilling because of shyness or bashfulness to run around naked? All of those feelings are basically "self" oriented feelings. You would not drive into work naked because it would embarass your co-workers but you. And this goes back to the Bible in that it was Adam and Eve who first stated they were naked. It was A&E who first decided that being naked was "evil".


There is no one who lives as Adam and Eve did...because they live in this world. They are bound by the laws that man has created since. There was but one spoken law for A&E...dont eat the fruit.


Yes often I do actually. I think A&E would have procreated though. And I think man would still have fallen...maybe by different actions though.

Tog

WOW Tog you are very very wise!

Keep reading! LOL

 

[Sourire]

It took me two years to study the Old and New Testament and I have to say it was worth the time spent!

I had thought for many many years that they were two spearate books but they are not. The New Testament really ties everything together. You can see when reading the New Testiment why he had to have the Isralites travel in the desert for 40 years. If Jesus had not come man the place we would be. There are tons of things that the Old Testament said were going to happen and then did happen in the New Testament. There are even things said that were going to happen and have just happened here in the last 50+ years!


LW Sleeth:
Adam and Eve has to be myth (who could have recorded their story?), and so where did the story come from?

The book of Geneis was written by Moses

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

and

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter1:21

 

[Sourire]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
"prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Timothy 1:21

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" - 2 Timothy 3:16

Laser Eyes...

"prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Timothy 1:21

I found that in 2 Peter 1:21... Is that the one you were meaning?

 

[Laser Eyes]

It sounds like the one I meant Sourire. I'm in Jakarta at the moment on my way to London and I didn't bring a Bible with me so I can't check it but it sounds like I got the name of the book wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Sourire]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It sounds like the one I meant Sourire. I'm in Jakarta at the moment on my way to London and I didn't bring a Bible with me so I can't check it but it sounds like I got the name of the book wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

Hopefully you don't mind that I corrected you...Just wanted to be sure!

Have a safe trip!

 

[CubeX]

well...

Well, there's A LOT of similarities. But basically, where the Old Testament prophesied, the N.T. fulfilled. I'd go over a few of them, but it would take too long to do so and it's 1:30 A.M. my time - I just can't sleep!

Also, I think it's just flat-out useful for a Christian to argue against a nonChristian about evolution when:
1) Non-Christians don't believe in the Bible! Why do they care about Gen 1 and 2? I wouldn't!
2) Most Christians don't even know the full extent of creationism is and they usually don't know what evolution fully states anyways! They might know what Neo-Darwinism states, but, come on! Let's do some studying!

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but I've been train and train myself to not be so stuck-to-what-they-told-me. Sometimes, it's good to question your beliefs, it'll show you what's been taught wrong and what hasn't been. (But first you'd better take a Bible study course!)

-CubeX

 

[Sourire]

I agree that is why I took two years to study both books so that I can see what it says and not what other people say it says. It is important to find it out for your self.