What Your Church Won't Tell You by Da...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30818 Apr 5, 2013
Understanding Matthew 25:1-13

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
__________

The "virgins" represent those that have accepted the sacrifice of our anointed Savior that cleansed them and reconciled them to Father (Rev 14:6?). In this parable, there are ten virgins. Five were wise. Five were foolish. And these ten virgins had lamps.

The "lamps" represent the righteous laws and commandments of Father. Proverbs 6:23 says, "For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." All ten virgins had a lamp. Five of these lamps had oil. Five did not.

The "oil" represents faith. Five virgins had their lamps full of oil. Five didn't.

NOTE: Keep in mind that the knowledge and unwavering belief in "God's" promises is unfeigned faith which provokes willing, devoted obedience to the law of Love. Willing, devoted obedience to the law of Love, then, serves as evidence of unfeigned faith which is evidence of genuine and unwavering belief in "God's" promises.

On the other hand, any lack of faith, or doubt, serves to prove as evidence that we, obviously, do not have unwavering belief in "God's" promises. Therefore and in such cases, we'll not be inclined to become devoted and obedient to "God's" law of Love unless it profits us almost immediately. We'll either, become lukewarm (lackadaisical and of little use), or unprofitable (hypocritical) altogether.

James 2:18-26
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest (have faith) that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe (have faith), and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?..
..For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Wise virgins--

Deuteronomy 4:5-6
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahoweh my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Foolish virgins--

Proverbs 24:9
The thought of foolishness is sin.

At James 2:14, it reads; "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" In conclusion, then, without faith that's revealed and evident by works, the foolish virgin will be denied attendance.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30825 Apr 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
No, he said something to the effect that which goes into the body does not make it unclean, but that which comes out of the mouth as spoken does.
You're only half right.

Mark 7:1-16 (partial)
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
And when they saw some of his disciples EAT BREAD WITH DEFILED, that is to say, WITH UNWASHEN, hands, they found fault.
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread WITH UNWASHEN HANDS?...
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

In this, we've no reason to apply any other definition to any form of the term "defile" than that which is already provided.
WasteWater wrote:
He said Moses gave you the divorce decree rather than God.
It was never intended that the married divorce. In this, Moses was allowed to provide Israel with this law. You might have missed it, but not too long ago, I posted verses that prove that the authors of what's written did, on occasion, insert their own assertions. Moses was allowed only because of what Israel had learned while in Egypt. Can you imagine what would have happened to the women that men came to despise while wandering through the desert all those years?
WasteWater wrote:
He obviously disregarded animal sacrifices.
Our anointed Savior instructed one that he healed, "See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them (Matt 8:4)."
WasteWater wrote:
He disregarded religious purity codes about that which was clean ant that which was not.
Matthew 8:4, quoted just above, was said to a leper.
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus either follows the Law of Moses or does not. Even on infraction proves he does not.
Incorrect. Now, you're in agreement with the priesthood that ordered his death.
WasteWater wrote:
Are you implying a covenant is an agreement?
No. I'm vehemently stating (not implying) that in concordance with what's written, that appropriate synonyms are-- agreement, arrangement, bargain, bond, commitment, compact, concordat, contract, convention, deal, deed, dicker, handshake, papers, stipulation, transaction, treaty, trust.
WasteWater wrote:
God gave Moses a covenant saying he would not flood the world and kill all the beings. Moses neither agreed nor disagreed correct? Moses did not need to do anything for the covenant to stand.
Of the most High, it's written that "because He could swear by no greater, He sware by himself." At certain times, stipulations were unnecessary and unwanted by Father. But, you're referring to the flood account. Not the covenant between the most High and Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30826 Apr 5, 2013
zander714 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pray for me too. I'm lost, im more ways than one.
;o)

I'm on it!!

Doubling them up now for you zander!!

NICE!!

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30827 Apr 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Ahhh yes. OTOH what is spiritual enlightenment?
I'll say this...

Spiritual enlightenment begins with atonement, which is to reach the goal of at-one-ment.

John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

1John 3:16
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

John 17:21-23 (partial)
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us... And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one...

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30828 Apr 5, 2013
Venguer wrote:
<quoted text>
Me too!:(
Now, now, only one praying session at a time. I know, "God" has this multi-tasking thing down pat....I'm still working out the kinks.

;o)

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30829 Apr 5, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
This is speculation, perception and belief all wrapped up, into one interpretation - you have no proof it occurred the way you do.
What we call "The Holy Bible" will agree with my assertions. I can quote both, the prophecies and the accounts recorded by the authors of the new covenant texts.
NASL wrote:
Which, since you cannot, gives creedence to the what the Gospel of Judas states - as Judas being a hero.
I ask that you forgive me if I offend you, but it seems to me that you'll agree with any document that coincides with your overall view of spirituality. Following are some of the issues I have with your cherished "gospel of Judas".

1) It's believed that this "gospel of Judas" was written not by Judas himself, but by Gnostic writers that, in limited ways, believed in our anointed Savior. This was common practice among Israelite authors.

2) It's believed, based on the theological content, that this "gospel of Judas" cannot have been written before the 2nd century, but most likely in the late 2nd century.

3) In 180 AD, Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, composed a document in total opposition of this "gospel of Judas". He called it a "fictitious history."

4) Carbon dating shows that this "gospel of Judas" dates to 280 A.D., giving or taking 60-years.

5) It's suggested the possibility that two such "gospels" existed-- one mentioned by Irenaeus and another found in the Codex Tchachos. The latter was carbon-dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries if memory serves me correctly.
NASL wrote:
You see, Lee, it is all about how one perceives something and then applies that interpretation.
Agreed.
NASL wrote:
It doesn't mean it is wrong,
Our perceptions could, indeed, be wrong, especially if we misinterpret what's written. And more-so if the text contradicts the Torah and Tanakh.
NASL wrote:
but the origins of the belief still don't change - the Spirit transcends - as Jesus describes and supposedly shown.
The idea is that we, as physical beings, learn to live spiritual lives. The most High is going to re-establish what Adam lost-- eternal life in our physical forms. True spirituality is not in the form we exist, or the type of body we inhabit, but in how we live.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30830 Apr 5, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Brotehr Lee wrote:
"This, our anointed Savior did not do on his own."
New Age writes:
Of course he didn't - it required man's involvement to have any action actually take root.
I meant that it was Father that renewed the covenant with Israel and not Yahowshua. Yahowshua played an integral part in the renewing of the new covenant, though.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30831 Apr 5, 2013
Venguer wrote:
Mind keepimg your posts to 10,000 words or less?
I make valiant efforts to shorten my posts, but it rarely works out that way.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30832 Apr 5, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>What we call "The Holy Bible" will agree with my assertions. I can quote both, the prophecies and the accounts recorded by the authors of the new covenant texts.
No they don't - I've posted my refutations to your "assertions" below. I've used facts. Not sure where your information came from.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>I ask that you forgive me if I offend you, but it seems to me that you'll agree with any document that coincides with your overall view of spirituality.
Okay, I agree. And it is the same as you do.
Imagine that, huh?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>
Following are some of the issues I have with your cherished "gospel of Judas".
1) It's believed that this "gospel of Judas" was written not by Judas himself, but by Gnostic writers that, in limited ways, believed in our anointed Savior. This was common practice among Israelite authors.
Well, okay. Most of the writers of the ancient texts "believed in our annointed Savior". What is your point?
FACT: none fo teh authors of the NT have precisely been proven to have written the text, instead the attributions are only supposed and probably discerned to be of disciples of disciples.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>2) It's believed, based on the theological content, that this "gospel of Judas" cannot have been written before the 2nd century, but most likely in the late 2nd century.
FACT: Irenaeus talks about it in 180 CE - when "Against Heresies" was written.
- BTW - Irenaeus was a bigot and not very "Christian", unless you call a person who judges many such. I don't.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>3) In 180 AD, Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, composed a document in total opposition of this "gospel of Judas". He called it a "fictitious history."
You just contradicted yourself.
DOH!!
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>4) Carbon dating shows that this "gospel of Judas" dates to 280 A.D., giving or taking 60-years.
True. In fact, Nat Geo has this data assigned:
"Tests on five separate samples from the papyrus and the leather binding date the codex to sometime between A.D. 220 and 340. The ink appears to be an ancient recipe—a mix of iron gall and soot inks. And Coptic scholars say telltale turns of phrase in the gospel indicate that it was translated from Greek, the language in which most Christian texts were originally written in the first and second centuries.“We all feel comfortable putting this copy in the fourth century,” one expert says, "and Kasser is sure enough to devote the end of his life to it.”"
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/05/jud...
- which now justifies this same logic can be applied to all the NT texts.
+ there is no surviving NT texts that dates earlier than the 4th century - and those books are in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
+ Thus, with you claiming one texts is not early enough, then in fact, none of them are.
+ Why do you believe men?
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>5) It's suggested the possibility that two such "gospels" existed-- one mentioned by Irenaeus and another found in the Codex Tchachos. The latter was carbon-dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries if memory serves me correctly.
See above response.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30833 Apr 5, 2013
<continued>
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Our perceptions could, indeed, be wrong, especially if we misinterpret what's written. And more-so if the text contradicts the Torah and Tanakh.
Why those two texts - which were also written by men?
You sure place alot of authority in men, for one who says they shouldn't.
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>The idea is that we, as physical beings, learn to live spiritual lives. The most High is going to re-establish what Adam lost-- eternal life in our physical forms. True spirituality is not in the form we exist, or the type of body we inhabit, but in how we live.
Speculating is fun, huh?
As for your comment of:
"True spirituality is not in the form we exist, or the type of body we inhabit, but in how we live."
- Correct - no religion, book, text, person, or anything is required.
- So why do you follow men?
Self.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#30834 Apr 5, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>I meant that it was Father that renewed the covenant with Israel and not Yahowshua. Yahowshua played an integral part in the renewing of the new covenant, though.
What proof do you have to support this theory?

Just the Bible? Any other documents or are you playing "all-in" with jsut the Bible?

Do you believe everything you read?

What specific factors are included for you to determine that one thing is true and another is false?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30835 Apr 5, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>You're only half right.
Mark 7:1-16 (partial)
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
And when they saw some of his disciples EAT BREAD WITH DEFILED, that is to say, WITH UNWASHEN, hands, they found fault.
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread WITH UNWASHEN HANDS?...
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
In this, we've no reason to apply any other definition to any form of the term "defile" than that which is already provided.
<quoted text>It was never intended that the married divorce. In this, Moses was allowed to provide Israel with this law. You might have missed it, but not too long ago, I posted verses that prove that the authors of what's written did, on occasion, insert their own assertions. Moses was allowed only because of what Israel had learned while in Egypt. Can you imagine what would have happened to the women that men came to despise while wandering through the desert all those years?
<quoted text>Our anointed Savior instructed one that he healed, "See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them (Matt 8:4)."
<quoted text>Matthew 8:4, quoted just above, was said to a leper.
<quoted text>Incorrect. Now, you're in agreement with the priesthood that ordered his death.
<quoted text>No. I'm vehemently stating (not implying) that in concordance with what's written, that appropriate synonyms are-- agreement, arrangement, bargain, bond, commitment, compact, concordat, contract, convention, deal, deed, dicker, handshake, papers, stipulation, transaction, treaty, trust.
<quoted text>Of the most High, it's written that "because He could swear by no greater, He sware by himself." At certain times, stipulations were unnecessary and unwanted by Father. But, you're referring to the flood account. Not the covenant between the most High and Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.
Jesus speaks with women of another tribe.

Jesus touches lepers.

Jesus fails many times to keep the Law of Moses as it is written.

You are hair splitting about covenants. God makes a covenant with Noah yet you deny it.

What kind of sadistic God would do such a thing as with Abraham? Such a God is unworthy of worship.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30836 Apr 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus speaks with women of another tribe.
..which, technically, is not against any law given to Moses. All the prohibitions about disassociation with Gentiles began after Israel's release from the Babylonian captivity. And this disassociation wasn't encouraged by Father.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

When our anointed Savior blessed the Samaritan woman, this was

[QUOTE ="WasteWater"]Jesus touches lepers.[/QUOTE]..which, also, is not prohibited in the law given to Moses. I mean, yes. People became unclean, themselves, if they came in contact with a leper, or anything the leper touched, but it wasn't a sin. Our anointed Savior, also, did what was necessary, showing that even the sick deserve love and compassion, and that not everyone sick was judged by "God". If they were, they couldn't be healed.
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus fails many times to keep the Law of Moses as it is written.
Well, hopefully, I've demonstrated that your perception is a wrong one, from the answers I've provided in this post. Even when he allowed his apostles to pick corn on the Sabbath, he picked none. And even then, he proved that necessity gave allowance.
WasteWater wrote:
You are hair splitting about covenants. God makes a covenant with Noah yet you deny it.
I denied nothing. Reading the text, we can see that the covenant was between Father and every living thing on earth. All I said, though, was that the covenant with Noah and every living thing was different than the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but it is what it is.
WasteWater wrote:
What kind of sadistic God would do such a thing as with Abraham? Such a God is unworthy of worship.
It's sad that you feel that way considering that Father stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided them an animal to sacrifice. It's also sad, too, that you feel that way considering that when it came to His own son, Father didn't withhold him from us, knowing that it was imperative that a substitute pay the price for our sins, and only a substitute that identifies with us identically. And you call the same "God" "sadistic."

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30837 Apr 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus speaks with women of another tribe.
..which, technically, is not against any law given to Moses. All the prohibitions about disassociation with Gentiles began after Israel's release from the Babylonian captivity.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

When our anointed Savior blessed the Samaritan woman, this was a foreshadow of what was to occur.
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus touches lepers.
..which, also, is not prohibited in the law given to Moses. I mean, yes. People became unclean, themselves, if they came in contact with a leper, or anything the leper touched, but it wasn't a sin. Our anointed Savior, also, did what was necessary, showing that even the sick deserve love and compassion, and that not everyone sick was judged by "God". If they were, they couldn't be healed.
WasteWater wrote:
Jesus fails many times to keep the Law of Moses as it is written.
Well, hopefully, I've demonstrated that your perception is a wrong one, from the answers I've provided in this post. Even when he allowed his apostles to pick corn on the Sabbath, he picked none, himself. During those moments, though, he proved that necessity overshadowed adherence.
WasteWater wrote:
You are hair splitting about covenants. God makes a covenant with Noah yet you deny it.
I denied nothing. Reading the text, we can see that the covenant was between Father and every living thing on earth. All I said, though, was that the covenant with Noah and every living thing was different than the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but it is what it is. Father is Father and that's the way it is. That's why I quoted a verse that proves that Father would make promises by His own name, because there was none greater to swear by.
WasteWater wrote:
What kind of sadistic God would do such a thing as with Abraham? Such a God is unworthy of worship.
It's sad that you feel that way considering that Father stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided them an animal to sacrifice. It's also sad, too, that you feel that way considering that when it came to His own son, Father didn't withhold him from us, knowing that it was imperative that a substitute pay the price for our sins, and only a substitute that identifies with us identically. And you call the same "God" "sadistic."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30838 Apr 6, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>..which, technically, is not against any law given to Moses. All the prohibitions about disassociation with Gentiles began after Israel's release from the Babylonian captivity. And this disassociation wasn't encouraged by Father.
Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
When our anointed Savior blessed the Samaritan woman, this was
<quoted text>..which, also, is not prohibited in the law given to Moses. I mean, yes. People became unclean, themselves, if they came in contact with a leper, or anything the leper touched, but it wasn't a sin. Our anointed Savior, also, did what was necessary, showing that even the sick deserve love and compassion, and that not everyone sick was judged by "God". If they were, they couldn't be healed.
<quoted text>Well, hopefully, I've demonstrated that your perception is a wrong one, from the answers I've provided in this post. Even when he allowed his apostles to pick corn on the Sabbath, he picked none. And even then, he proved that necessity gave allowance.
<quoted text>I denied nothing. Reading the text, we can see that the covenant was between Father and every living thing on earth. All I said, though, was that the covenant with Noah and every living thing was different than the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Call it "splitting hairs" if you want, but it is what it is.
<quoted text>It's sad that you feel that way considering that Father stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son and provided them an animal to sacrifice. It's also sad, too, that you feel that way considering that when it came to His own son, Father didn't withhold him from us, knowing that it was imperative that a substitute pay the price for our sins, and only a substitute that identifies with us identically. And you call the same "God" "sadistic."
I don't think it is sad at all. I believe it is a teaching story about faith. It never actually happened just as many things in the Bible never happened.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30839 Apr 6, 2013
Also, it may be that Canaanite ritual required the sacrifice of children to the Canaanite God Moloch. The story of Abraham taught that the Hebrew God was against such practice but required devotion and unconditional faith.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30840 Apr 6, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
No they don't -
If they didn't, I wouldn't be able to quote verses that prove as much.
NASL wrote:
I've posted my refutations to your "assertions" below. I've used facts. Not sure where your information came from.
My 7-year old daughter refutes my assertions that brussels sprouts are good for her, so... In the meantime, my facts are based on what I read. I can, most easily, quote the prophecy from the old covenant texts and align them with a quote from the new covenant texts that say it was fulfilled by our anointed Savior.
NASL wrote:
Okay, I agree. And it is the same as you do.
Imagine that, huh?
Imagined it. Not true, at all.
NASL wrote:
Well, okay. Most of the writers of the ancient texts "believed in our annointed Savior". What is your point?
FACT: none fo teh authors of the NT have precisely been proven to have written the text, instead the attributions are only supposed and probably discerned to be of disciples of disciples.
Many (if not all) the "early Church 'fathers'," as they're called and that wrote their own books during the early 2nd century, mentioned the gospel texts by name, so obviously, the texts align with the era they're supposed to have been written. Your precious "gospel of Judas" does not. It's that simple.
NASL wrote:
FACT: Irenaeus talks about it in 180 CE - when "Against Heresies" was written.
- BTW - Irenaeus was a bigot and not very "Christian", unless you call a person who judges many such. I don't.
Your accusation is irrelevant to the discussion. This discussion is about the authenticity of your precious "gospel of Judas". Even if Irenaeus was a perfect Christian, that wouldn't change a thing.
NASL wrote:
You just contradicted yourself.
DOH!!
How so? I said, "In 180 AD, Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, composed a document in total opposition of this 'gospel of Judas'. He called it a 'fictitious history'." 180 AD is, indeed, in the latter portion of the 2nd century, is it not?

Year 1 to year 99 - 1st century
Year 100 to 199 - 2nd century

Your thirst for argument has gotten the better of you. Perhaps, it is you that should be saying "D'OH!"
NASL wrote:
True. In fact, Nat Geo has this data assigned...

- which now justifies this same logic can be applied to all the NT texts.
In fact, it can't, but only according to the copies of the original texts. Other than that, though, we have witness by the so-called "early Church 'fathers'."
NASL wrote:
+ there is no surviving NT texts that dates earlier than the 4th century - and those books are in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
See above answer.
NASL wrote:
+ Thus, with you claiming one texts is not early enough, then in fact, none of them are.
See above answer.
NASL wrote:
+ Why do you believe men?
Your question is only valid if your beliefs are all based on original thought. They're not, though. Without men, you would have never have gotten any concept of anything "spiritual".
NASL wrote:
Why those two texts - which were also written by men?
Because the Torah and Tanakh are said to be from Father, Himself. And I believe it.
NASL wrote:
You sure place alot of authority in men, for one who says they shouldn't.
I believe we shouldn't depend solely on men and that we should be inclined to investigate every claim.
NASL wrote:
Speculating is fun, huh?
As for your comment of:
"True spirituality is not in the form we exist, or the type of body we inhabit, but in how we live."
- Correct - no religion, book, text, person, or anything is required.
- So why do you follow men?
Self.
What'll happen if my "self's" version of love doesn't coincide with yours? What if my "self's" perception of love dictates that I have every right to have sex with my wife, your wife, your mother, your sister, and your daughter, all at the same time?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30841 Apr 6, 2013
I wrote: I meant that it was Father that renewed the covenant with Israel and not Yahowshua. Yahowshua played an integral part in the renewing of the new covenant, though.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
What proof do you have to support this theory?
It's in the bible.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Just the Bible? Any other documents or are you playing "all-in" with jsut the Bible?
Just the bible. But, the bible is a collection of 66 separate documents, so...
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Do you believe everything you read?
Apparently, I don't, or I'd believe you were truly a legitimate leader of some new-age spirituality movement.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
What specific factors are included for you to determine that one thing is true and another is false?
In the bible? All things must harmonize with Torah and Tanakh.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#30842 Apr 6, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
I don't think it is sad at all. I believe it is a teaching story about faith. It never actually happened just as many things in the Bible never happened.
Actually, it's even more sad that you would call Father "sadistic" for giving us an account that you believe is not an actual, historic event and supposed to be merely teaching us a moral lesson. Darth Vader's a mean dude, but I don't think George Lucas is sadistic for creating him, or the Star Wars saga.
WasteWater wrote:
Also, it may be that Canaanite ritual required the sacrifice of children to the Canaanite God Moloch. The story of Abraham taught that the Hebrew God was against such practice but required devotion and unconditional faith.
Perhaps. But, I believe the account is actual and factual. The author of "Hebrews" seems to believe as I do.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30843 Apr 6, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, it's even more sad that you would call Father "sadistic" for giving us an account that you believe is not an actual, historic event and supposed to be merely teaching us a moral lesson. Darth Vader's a mean dude, but I don't think George Lucas is sadistic for creating him, or the Star Wars saga.
<quoted text>Perhaps. But, I believe the account is actual and factual. The author of "Hebrews" seems to believe as I do.
The flood never happened either. It is physically impossible. So why should I believe that God spoke to Abraham in such a way?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 23 min Maxxx_Payne 17,274
Is Dwayne Johnson The Rock a real man ? (Aug '14) 1 hr unserve username 2
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr lil whispers 619,708
-----1-World 'MARK' Closer / POPE & U.N. ----- 2 hr News July 2017 1
ex wives of PTSD veterans (Mar '12) 2 hr Pbjmummy32 36
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Robert F 683,926
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 hr Aerobatty 983,250
More from around the web