Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
enemies indeed. i say, LETS EAT!
and what a spread, mr ed. thank you.
yeahh, sorta, kinda, ...... i give the early church a little more credit than that. simply on the basis that much of what we have is so congruent and so useful. i dont discount that pride and hubris existed then, it was simply not as easy to say or do something and get away with it. news was word of mouth. eyewitnesses were more reliable simply due to sobriety and lack of distraction. i also think people took themselves and the lord more serious back then. im not trying to interject my own bias onto what happened; quite the opposite. i trust the lord more than i trust men. HE chose the twelve and i have to trust. but look at peter - he denied christ. look at the early church. after jesus told them that the greatest among them would be the servant of all they decided it was not right for them in the hierarchy there in jerusalem to "wait tables" so they sent out stephen to be stoned. bad form. the lord took care of all that in 70AD. the council of nicea freaks people out. it doesnt me. i have had such good results doing the scriptures that i dont need any other proof that they are correct and sufficient. at this point, if i find out that it was all fabricated and for nothing, it was still worth it. i love my lord and the things he has taught me. i wouldnt do it any differently. i can live with myself. i can understand the world around me. i feel sane in an insane world. i also know full well what that looks like outside of me. oh well. i like using the names given the books and i figure there is something there in all of it, even if some of it is "in the name of" someone and not truly their hand. i do have some problems with some things simply because they dont make sense or are not consistent with scripture. we are told to obey government and then told that if you obey government and take the mark so you can buy and sell that REv 14: 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. so, yea, theres some bull hockey been put in there and i think its fairly obvious.
ok, i re-read my idea about picking and choosing scriptures and read what you said and was convicted that i am wrong. there is a reason for all of it. just because we dont understand it doesnt mean it has no usefulness. the bible is the spiritual DNA which makes up the son of man inside of us. look at DNA. how much of our genetic code is called, in mans infinite arrogance, junk dna? 98.8% 1.2% would leave the direct words of jesus as the encoding DNA and the rest of it is of unknown function. i trust the lord. and i see the whole thing as THE BOOK. this is on the say so of no man. it is the spirit which tells me this.
Revelation 22:17-19 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
i think thats the whole book. isaiah has 66 books. the psalms of ascent match up to the new testament very well. the only ringer for me is the gospel of thomas. i am starting to see luke and acts as one gospel and thomas as the fourth. but im not about to change anything of my own.
yes, i am not exactly a bible scholar, but i do know about the synoptics and how mark seems to be the earliest and a template for the other two. they have such different flavors, though. and there are slight differences and variations that, while not conflicting, certainly add to the overall perspective. i am still looking at thomas. that seems like one slipping through the early church's fingers. revelation is about revealing what has been hidden. are the four gospels we know the four gospels john knew? lol even revelation is not attributed to john by some scholars. god knows i have to work with what i have been given. i trust him over the speculations of men. thomas was certainly hidden until 1945.
ed: " I believe any of these four books among various others could have been canonized and had incorrect God-like characteristics ascribed to them and it likely wouldn't have made much difference in the way the institutionalized church system believes and operates today :)."
i think youre right, but only because what IS canon doesnt seem to affect them much, either. lol i think they would have made a huge difference with me. ive been over that bible with a fine toothed comb, the new testament especially. this is the reason i really dont seek extrabiblical sources, ancient or recent. the bible is on my plate and if thats not enough then maybe god messed up. salvation is not an IQ test. gods word to us must be simple and direct and permeating all of creation. i see the bible as a miracle. as much as any newborn.
Ed: "The control, manipulation, domination, intimidation, murder, etc along the way and into the present day are behaviors of those institutionalized church leaders who were and are religious wolves in sheeps clothing and who were not and are not truly following God."
that just merited repeating.
ed: "healings and deliverances in Jesus name really do continue to happen today and this has been one important aspect of the ministry i have been in for the past several years. I know several other disciples of the Lord who have seen lots of instant miracles through their prayers as well, just as in the gospels and the book of acts. Moving mountains was likely hyperbole. :)."
interesting and good to know. we all have a job to do. its the doing thats important. good for you.
they make fatal flaws in logic and they can be bought. what can i add to that? to call this a living planet and then base all your knowledge and theories on everything always having been as it is and always will be is lunacy. how in the universe can a 50 year old man understand billions of years? and I am called a wack job because i cant find a curve on a world that is completely covered in water! lololololol
"fundamentalist apologists believe through vigorous mental gymnastics that they can make every contradiction disappear and thus defend their doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility. ...in some cases their rationale is legitimate but in other instances that they are being either intentionally dishonest or spiritually blind."
i also find that the ungodly have some legitimate beefs with scripture but then i find this is usually in light of errant interpretation by "believers". the ungodly also dont like god doing whatever he wants with his creation. funny, those same people want to own what they create and do whatever they want with it. what few seem to realize is that the bible describes. it really doesnt judge. all the judgement is pointed out. the rest is just an accurate narrative of events. like the apostles staying in jerusalem. jesus told them to go into all the world. but people codify those early christians works like they did it right. no. not always.
ed: "As one example of something i do not believe is God breathed, the supposed misogyny of God Himself is rampant and thematic throughout the entire bible, both in the old testament and the new. I do not believe that the true Heavenly Father is a misogynyst, but rather that errant and culturally biased men misrepresented Him in this way all throughout the bible."
actually, i dont see the problem there. jesus didnt have a problem with women. women were viewed as property as a particular necessity. women and children must be protected and nurtured. what i dont believe is feminism. women are not men without penises. they are humans without maleness. i dont see the problem as god's but men's instead. paul said it best, honor your female as your own body and for husbands and wives to submit to one another. the problem has always been that one cannot please god and the flesh, be it the bag of bones youre in or the bag laying next to you. godly people know this. the woman was taken from adams side. she belongs at his side, not in front or behind. god made man and sam colt made em all equal, even women. lol but we live in an artificial world and must adjust to that best we can. i dont see misogyny in the scriptures. i see a consistent type and shadow of the male being the type of the spirit and the female being the type of the flesh. if you look at the law of moses, its written mostly for men. the law does not say "thou shalt not covet they neighbors husband." thats because the works of the flesh are inherently covetous. why condemn a woman because of the way she was created? in fact, jesus did not. the problem lies in the double standard. lording it over someone is not loving them. when the adulterous woman was brought to jesus, what do you think he wrote on the ground? she was caught in the very act of it. that must have been something. whats the law on adultery? both the man and the woman is to be stoned. i think he wrote, "where is the man?"