General Chat

Davo That doesn't answer my questions at all:) Rachel married her sister Leah's living husband - why was she not condemned as Herod? And what of the contradiction of us being told to kill sinners and yet told not to kill? This is my point - it's impossible to live completely by the word of the Bible.

David greetings Of course it is impossible to live by God's law. That is why we need to repent of our sins and turn to Christ. In Acts 2, Peter reminded the Jews (and others) that they had killed the Author of Life. 'Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.' As many as are far off means you and me. This promise is for us. regards David Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Davo in Kent Luke Was born a Greek in Antioch, Syria. He may have been born a slave but it was not unusual for the times to educate a slave and train him to be skilled as a medic so as to be able to treat his masters. Few facts are known about him but it is documented that he met up with Paul in AD 51. We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. I have several commentaries on the bible, having once studied theology, and obtain my information from various authors. My views are my own, arrived at by study of the information available. I am usually careful to be accurate with my information (and spelling) and endeavour to refrain from cant. It would be appreciated if you would do likewise and stop spouting passages from the scriptures as if they were the final authority. Perhaps they are for you, and that is your right. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company 'So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' ' Then suddenly in 16:10 'they' becomes 'we': 'When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.' So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace, Neapolis, and finally Philippi. Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. Seven years passed before Paul returned to the area on his third missionary journey. In Acts 20:5, the switch to 'we' tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up. They traveled together through Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, to Jerusalem.

Davo in Kent Luke Was born a Greek in Antioch, Syria. He may have been born a slave but it was not unusual for the times to educate a slave and train him to be skilled as a medic so as to be able to treat his masters. Few facts are known about him but it is documented that he met up with Paul in AD 51. We have to go to Acts to follow the trail of Luke's Christian ministry. We know nothing about his conversion but looking at the language of Acts we can see where he joined Saint Paul. I have several commentaries on the bible, having once studied theology, and obtain my information from various authors. My views are my own, arrived at by study of the information available. I am usually careful to be accurate with my information (and spelling) and endeavour to refrain from cant. It would be appreciated if you would do likewise and stop spouting passages from the scriptures as if they were the final authority. Perhaps they are for you, and that is your right. The story of the Acts is written in the third person, as an historian recording facts, up until the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 16:8-9 we hear of Paul's company 'So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, 'Come over to Macedonia and help us.' ' Then suddenly in 16:10 'they' becomes 'we': 'When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.' So Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year 51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace, Neapolis, and finally Philippi. Luke then switches back to the third person which seems to indicate he was not thrown into prison with Paul and that when Paul left Philippi Luke stayed behind to encourage the Church there. Seven years passed before Paul returned to the area on his third missionary journey. In Acts 20:5, the switch to 'we' tells us that Luke has left Philippi to rejoin Paul in Troas in 58 where they first met up. They traveled together through Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, to Jerusalem.

I keep forgetting that GR rations us as to how much we can write in a post. I noticed that my last post had been curtailed so here is the rest of it: Luke's inspiration and information for his Gospel and Acts came from his close association with Paul and his companions as he explains in his introduction to the Gospel: 'Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus' (Luke 1:1-3). If you will read the last long and somewhat ambiguous sentence carefully, Davo, and compare it with your version, you will find minor differences. If you take various version of the bible you will find difference throughout. We seem to have hi-jacked Lynda's thread and made it a discussion of the bible. Perhaps we should revert to her original theme? Len

Len of the Chilterns, greetings. Thank you for taking time to reply. The scriptures claim to be inspired by God, or God breathed. If so, then they are the final authority, and I will continue to let them speak for themselves, rather than being accused of mis-interpreting them. You said that most original documents were lost in the war of 70 AD. I'm not sure if you referred to the Old or New Testaments. You had previously said that Revelation was written later than that, We would accept c96 AD for its date.Someone mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls. As these were witten before 70 AD what I am going to say now will apply to both comments. This evening I happened to meet a Jewish Christian, who mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls without knowing anything about this thread. He said that the scriptures in Dead Sea Scrolls were word for word the same as those he had learnt as a child. He read a page from the scrolls to us in Hebrew, and then said the King James Version was a word for word translation. He also said that the Jews, when copying the scriptures, counted every letter on every page that they had completed and discarded any page copied that had even a jot missing. It would not matter then if the original documents were destroyed. Copies were also only taken from the oldest copy. Obviously documents would wear out over the years, and a fresh copy would need to be used as the 'master.' This was always the oldest. The New Testament scriptures were mostly written to churches around the Empire and would have been preserved in them. They also undoubtedly had copies of the gospels. It is said that no Christian died in the seige of Jerusaalem, having been warned by Jesus in Luke 21: 20 -21 'And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.' (Also mentioned by Matthew and Mark and possibly in Daniel 12:1.) The armies were likely those of Cestius, who attacked Jerusalem and was on the point of taking it, when he withdrew his armies for absolutely no reason. The believers would no doubt have taken their scriptures with them. Following is Josephus' account of this event. The Wars of the Jews Book 2, Chapter 19: 4 But when Cestius was come into the city, he set the part called Bezetha, which is also called Cenopolis, [or the new city], on fire; as he did also to the timber market; after which he came into the upper city, and pitched his camp over against the royal palace; and had he but at this very time attempted to get within the walls by force, he had won the city presently, and the war had been put an end to at once; but Tyrannius Priscus, the muster-master of the army, and a great number of the officers of the horse, and been corrupted by Florus, and diverted him from that his attempt; and that was the occasion that this war lasted so very long, and thereby the Jews were involved in such incurable calamities. 5. In the meantime, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed in the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from the wall, and, pelting them with stones, drove them into their houses; but they stood themselves at proper distances in the towers, and threw their darts at those that were getting over the wall. Thus did the Romans make their attack against the wall for five days, but to no purpose. But on the next day, Cestius took a great many of his choicest men, and with them the archers, and attempted to break into the temple at the northern quarter of it; but the Jews beat them off from the cloisters, and repulsed them several times when they were gotten near to the wall, till at length the multitude of the darts cut them off, and made them retire; but the first rank of the Romans rested their shields upon the wall, and so did those that were behind them, and the like did those that were still more backward, and guarded themselves with what they call Testudo, [the back of] a tortoise, upon which the darts that were thrown fell, and slided off without doing them any harm; so the soldiers undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple. --- continued---

Len of the Chilterns -------------Continued------------ 6. And now it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius as their benefactor, who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day. 7. It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, WITHOUT ANY REASON IN THE WORLD. ====== The armies of Cestius were defeated by the Jews, almost causing Nero to commit suicide Jesus had warned the Christians to flee Jerusalem when they saw the city surrounded by armies, which could have been the following ---------Chapter 20------------ ''1. After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink;'' There was also a period when Titus withdrew his troops for three days to enable the Jews to surrender and to pay his army their wages. Len whenever I see anyone attack the scriptures, I will defend them. You have already given your views on at least two earlier threads. Regards and God Bless David For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: Job 19:25

Davo. Thanks for that. Now let's have some of your own reasoning and observations - and try to avoid quoting tracts from the writings that many of us regard as myth. No doubt repeating these, parrot fashion, bolsters your belief system but leaves others unimpressed. I am sure there are plenty of contradictory passages we could quote back to you. Now that the Anglican Church appears to be on its last legs, do you think women and gays should be ordained as bishops? Had you been born a Jew or perhaps a Muslim no doubt you would have been equally mesmerised by either the Torah or Koran. Although they probably outnumber Christians, they appear to be more devout. Are they misguided ? Len

Len I'm not an Anglican, so have no say in their antics. David

Len If you are referring to Josephus as a myth writer, I would remind you that he was an eyewitness to the Jewish wars. David

In Oz last night, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) televised the documentary regarding the Gospel according to Judas. The original papyrus based writings discovered in Egypt in recent times have been authenticated by carbon dating. This gospel throws an entirely different perspective on the relationship Jesus had with Judas. Rather than being a traitor, it portrays Judas as being closest to Jesus and simply carrying out Jesus' wishes when delivering the famous Judas kiss. It's fascinating. Oh that we had accesss to the huge volume of writing which was passed over in favour of the gospels which were chosen for the Bible. It seems selective editing started with the Bible. Anna

Whatever anyone believes or doesn't believe, I think it's a great pity when anyone becomes so entrenched in their beliefs that they lose sight of the fact that all these religious beliefs are rooted to some extent in faith as opposed to fact. No-one is 100% sure what did or did not happen in history. I'm not getting at anyone here, my comment applies to believers of just about any belief system on the planet and an observation that a little humility goes a long way.

Anna I had read something about that already and that it goes some way to enforcing the idea that the Crucifixion was a carefully stage managed magic trick. I was extremely fortunate to have an inspirational teacher at school and he told us to examine the facts...all the facts...consider all possibilities...only then are you entitled to have an opinion - anything else is a prejudice. (He was talking generally, not of religion). This has stood me in good stead. I know that the Bible is an edited, corrupted version of what someone thinks someone else said or did - and because of that I cannot take it as anything more than an interesting story. OC

This is a briliant thread. I don't believe in God myself but I love to hear about religion (all different religions) from people who do. People can speak with such passion and faith that you can almost feel it. Sue xx

It is interesting Sue isn't it? I sit omn the fence with religion, it all seems very far fetched to me, but am amazed that some folk can quote passages from the bible word for word, and I'm sure they don't have to read it, just have it all in there heads. I don't think my head could take all that in, and not sure I'd want it to anyway, but as you say Sue, you can feel the passion in some folks words. Hope more people add, it makes interesting reading. Lynda

...well, you did say you wanted more people to add... so I'm back on here again! Lynda- I wonder if it would draw more people in if you changed the thread title to something like 'what do you believe?'....hope you don't mind me suggesting that? It's just that 'non-believers' seems limiting, considering the discussions that have gone on! Denise

You're right Denise, I have now changed the title. Thanks for the suggestion Lynda :))))))

But... I suppose that means you've now gotta amend the sentence under the title too, to make it more general??? Oh, don't listen to me in future- I'm always full of bright ideas! D

Anyway...now that Davo & Len have done all the detailed heavy stuff & baffled us , or at least me, with science & theology...can I ask a less theoretical, more experiential question- Who has had definite experiences of God that convince them of his reality? I don't mean all the trying to contact the dead & seeing the future stuff- there are other threads for that on here. I mean how people going from knowing/wondering about God to actually knowing his personal involvement in your life? Denise

I was bought up in a religious family (my father was headmaster of a CofE school). I had thoughts of a church career but chose the R.C.church as other denominations were but splinter groups After months of tuition, study and research, in my twenties, I became disillusioned. The Tutor-Priest was bit like an advanced Davo, something of a parrot who had learned his catechism but could not answer questions in depth, and the stock answer to any dilemma was 'you must have faith, my son' by which he meant 'give up reason and knowledge' I do have faith; in reason and free-will which, after much thought leads me to observe that the most damaging plague to beset mankind, that responsible for the most repellent, brutal behaviour the world over, is organised religion. I do, however, believe in consciousness being a separate entity from the physical body and go along with Plato's definition of God. Len