Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I first began to think about this question when I began to study the
    Apostle Paul.
    
    Paul is a real person.  A real man.  He is the only Biblical author
    whom we can unquestionably attribute his own writings too.
    
    Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philipians, Philemon, 1 Thessolonians
    are unequivocably attributed to this great theologian.  These writings
    are believed by most scholars to be the writings chronologically
    closest to the time of Jesus.  At the time these writings were read in
    the individual churches and circulated, there was no written Gospel.
    There was an oral history and oral tradition about Jesus Christ.
    
    If we attribute the words of Paul to God rather than to Paul we totally
    loose the human dimmension of Paul's life.  If we assume that
    everything that Paul wrote is from God, then we make Paul, a fallible
    human into an infallible human.  We misrepresent him.
    
    If we assume Paul was a fallible human, then we search his writings to
    separate out the wheat from the chaff.  We get to know Paul as a man
    with some petty annoyances and prejudices.  As a woman, I get to accept
    Paul as fallible, accept him as a first century theologians with some
    very real prejudices against women.  
    
    Part of each of our spiritual journeys is to accept ourselves as
    fallible.  When we learn to accept ourselves as fallible, then we can
    love and accept others as fallible.  
    
    For me, it is very important to feel the anger I have felt at the
    things Paul wrote about woman and at the same time recognize that the
    non petty in Paul's writing is brilliant theology and a brilliant
    testimony to 1st Century Christianity.
    
    all this I would loose if I forced myself to read Paul's letters as
    infallible!

>         -< What would we loose if we believed in an innerant Bible >-

    The necessity to defend our beliefs.
    
    The necessity to try to perceive God and Her will on our own.

    The anxiety of wondering if our beliefs are correct.

    The necessity of changing our beliefs when circumstances indicate.

    In essence, the necessity to find our own way through life and
    to God.

    'twould be a much simpler existance.  Don't think.  Just believe.

    We'd also lose our ability to cope with things not encompassed
    in the Bible.

    But, then what if the Bible is not innerant?  We will have wasted
    all this time when we should have been looking for God with our
    own eyes.

    Tom

    ZZ    The necessity to defend our beliefs.
      
    This conference is a testimony proving this to be incorrect.
      
    ZZ    The necessity to try to perceive God and Her will on our own.
    
    History has proven this wrong.  Understanding God better even for the
    staunch believer takes a lifetime.  Billy Graham was quoted as saying
    that if he to do it over again, he would have spent less time traveling
    and more time studying.
    
    ZZ    The anxiety of wondering if our beliefs are correct.
    
    If you really believed in the inerrancy of scripture, I doubt very much
    that Satan would relax making one doubt.  King David, a man after God's
    own heart and a prophet obviously lived in doubt and much fear and
    distress.  Believers are most suseptable to these emotions. 
    
    ZZ    The necessity of changing our beliefs when circumstances indicate.
    
    Tom, I've changed my belief on some very major issues in the last few
    months.  I believe Peter the apostle did much the same thing in regard
    to the conversion of believers...mainly because he couln't let go of
    his heritage.
    
    ZZ    In essence, the necessity to find our own way through life and
    ZZ    to God.
    
    Now this I agree with 100%.  I hope more people do this because we all
    like sheep have gone astray.
    
    ZZ    'twould be a much simpler existance.  Don't think.  Just believe.
    
    Not at all.  I believe our existence would be for the sheer purposes 
    of paying bills, paying taxes, and patting ourselves on the back.  What
    kind of an existence would this be?!
    
    -Jack

 Should the title be "lose" rather than "loose".  I know of a lot of
 wonderful things that could be loosed if the inerrancy of the Bible
 were believed.


 
Jim

|    If we attribute the words of Paul to God rather than to Paul we totally
|    loose the human dimmension of Paul's life.  If we assume that
|    everything that Paul wrote is from God, then we make Paul, a fallible
|    human into an infallible human.  We misrepresent him.
    
    I think this is an great overstatement.  I hold the Bible as inerrant
    and still say Paul's human side in many places as well as the great
    divinely-inspired passages.  Just in reading Romans 6-8 (especially 7),
    I can really identify with Paul.
    
    Mike

    Why does God's inspiration of Paul's scriptural writing negate his human 
    frailties?  Can God not inspire inerrant scripture while showing the 
    fallibility of his tool in these same writings?  I think He does this in 
    many areas of the Bible - both old and new testaments.
    
    Just my 3 pennies.
    
    
    -steve

>    Why does God's inspiration of Paul's scriptural writing negate his human 
>    frailties?  Can God not inspire inerrant scripture while showing the 
>    fallibility of his tool in these same writings?  I think He does this in 
>    many areas of the Bible - both old and new testaments.

    It is precisely these frailties that make us receptive to the
    message in the Bible.

    I have written several notes in here that I feel were inspired
    by the holy spirit.  Although I believe I was speaking the truth
    I wouldn't go so far as to call them inerrant under all circumstances.

    One human, calling out to another, warts and all, I believe is
    the best way for this material to be communicated.  The weight 
    of it having to be the last word of God I think would detract
    from it's message.

    Human to human.  Heart to heart.  This is down and dirty.  It
    isn't immaculate.  I don't think it's supposed to be.  But it 
    *is* inspired.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1267.6 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>

| Can God not inspire inerrant scripture while showing the fallibility of his 
| tool in these same writings?  

	That's like asking is there a rock that God can create that He can't
move. 

    >But it *is* inspired.
    
    Good, at least we have an area of common ground to toy with.  8^)  
    You don't see the Bible as inerrant, but you do see it as inspired, 
    right (unless I'm missing something)?
    
    I think of the books of the Bible as man writing down the words as God
    gives them.  I see God as being able to work in such a way that his
    tool can write down his innermost feelings (like in the Songs of
    Solomon and Psalms), yet also be inspired - within these very feelins,
    or despite them, if you will - to also ingrain truth, as revealed by God.  
    You in effect, end up with something that the rest of us humans can both 
    relate to (being creatures of emotion) and trust (the scriptures also 
    being God's word to mankind).
    
    You see, God is well educated about human feelings... he made us.  He
    knows what makes us tick.  He records these things in his book, and
    uses them to teach lessons, encourage, and to reveal truth.
    
    When it comes to prophesy, I cannot believe that God has allowed
    errors to be placed into His Word (God and "error" simply do not go
    together, IMO).  We can count of the things prophesied to come to pass,
    just as they are written.  We can guess as to what causes the death and
    destruction in the parts of Revelation that have no specifically
    revealed cause (some say parts of Revelation describes nuclear
    explosions -> "and the sky receedeth like a scroll") and such - but of
    this we cannot be sure until it happens.  Such "interpretations" are
    not gospel.  We can trust that what is described, however, is accurate, 
    and will come to pass - though perhaps not via the cause/effect we
    thought would trigger the event in question.
    
    Does this make any sense to you?  
    
    
    -steve                         

    I believe scripture presents an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God
    who can do anything.  Inspiring inerrant scripture while showing the
    fallibility of man is nothing to Him.  Some of the NT epistles even
    point this out.
    
    Mike

    .8
    
    Not at all, Glen.  Paul was human, he wasn't perfect (I don't think we
    have an argument here  8^) ).  This does not mean that God could not
    use Paul to reveal His truth to mankind.  In these writings, He wants
    Paul to convey his own difficulties (as a form of encouragement for
    us... even a desciple of Jesus himself faulters), which Paul does. 
    Paul also writes down other truths, as revealed by God.
    
    I wouldn't be too quick to limit God in such a way, saying His Word -
    the very backbone of His plan for humanity - is faulty because He used
    faulty humans to write it down.  When you boil this logic down, you
    come to the conclusion that Paul limited God in some way.  I don't find
    this conclusion reasonable, therefore, I reject the logic behind it.
    
    
    -steve

	Mike, what they prove is that the Bible is not inerrant. 

    
I've always wondered why Jesus never wrote, or had someone write his words
down directly.  I mean one would think that it would be important to get this
stuff down right so that it could be passed along through the generations with
as little confussion as possible.  Instead, we have a collection of accounts
which have been the fuel for controversy and debate for years.  I find it hard
to believe that these written accounts and the confussion that followed was
what Jesus would have wanted.  I find it more likely that writting stuff down
was NOT what he would have wanted.  I also wonder why it took as long as it
did for the gospels to finally be written.  What was standing in their way all
that time?

Once something's been written down, it's been limited.  It's limited to the
vocabulary and syntax of the language used.  And then it's limited to the 
efficiency of translation into other languages, and their inherint limitations
beyond that.  Emphasis and other subtleties apparent in spoken word are
forever lost once committed to paper.  Writting things down was the best means
available to mere man back then but it's poor compared to what an omnipotent
God could provide.  

Was a better way found?

Didn't Jesus teach that an internalization of his teachings was what was
important, and not simple obedience to written law?  Jesus was literate yet he
chose to teach by example and through parables and did not write anything
down.  Why?  I wonder, How much red ink would Jesus decorate a copy of the New
Testemant with if one was presented to him?  I wonder if he would approve or
disapprove of the whole process of writting down his messages on paper... or
stone.

What is lost in the innerant view?  Well, I believe that Jesus' message was 
meant to be a simple one.  And I believe that he taught by example.  Yet I see
the collection of the gospels as intorducing complexity and sometimes
confussion.  One forced to reconcile everything written might miss the simple
message by getting bogged down in the details, details which might well be
artifacts.

-dave

| <<< Note 1267.11 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>

| This does not mean that God could not use Paul to reveal His truth to mankind.

	If His Truth is to be revealed... and His Truth is being revealed
through the Holy Spirit to Paul, then why did Paul take credit for His Truth?
This is where you lose me everytime. I fully agree that God could use Paul to
get a message out to someone. Just like He could with anyone else. But for a
book that is supposed to be His Word, and the Holy Spirit preserved it as His
Word (Hey Paul, this is from God. Give credit to who came up with the idea), 
Paul would either have to say it was from God through the Holy Spirit, or it 
was his own opinion. He didn't say the former, so the latter comes into play.
And the latter shows human opinions. That makes the Bible not inerrant. Or are
you saying the Holy Spirit didn't know it came from God?

>    Good, at least we have an area of common ground to toy with.  8^)  
>    You don't see the Bible as inerrant, but you do see it as inspired, 
>    right (unless I'm missing something)?

    It works for me :-)

>    I think of the books of the Bible as man writing down the words as God
>    gives them.  I see God as being able to work in such a way that his
>    tool can write down his innermost feelings (like in the Songs of
>    Solomon and Psalms), yet also be inspired - within these very feelins,
>    or despite them, if you will - to also ingrain truth, as revealed by God.  
>    You in effect, end up with something that the rest of us humans can both 
>    relate to (being creatures of emotion) and trust (the scriptures also 
>    being God's word to mankind).

    What a wonderful celebration of the Bible.  I don't agree with you,
    but the Bible must bring you great joy when viewed by you as you do.

    I think you believe that the Bible tells you how you must live if
    you want to get to heaven and/or stay out of hell when you die.
    That God, although omnipresent, *chooses* to be aloof and not
    show Himself except through His word.  Kind of a test for His
    faithful.  The Bible sets down such high standards as to be 
    next to impossible to fulfill at all times.  This is where
    Jesus comes in.
    
    My model is different. (surprise! :-)  It's a lot less tidy.
    I outlined it  in a recent note.  Our destiny is union with
    God.  We need to awaken to this fact.  To join with God we
    must be fully awake/aware.  Following the teachings of Jesus
    is a *very* good start.  You discover love, how it's better
    for everyone, especially yourself, to learn to love.  Hate
    ties you up and drugs you to sleep.  Following these, and
    some other, basic principles one becomes more and more aware
    of the love that surrounds them in *everything* they see.
    Wherever you are you are with people whom you love.  Realize
    this and it's not too great a step to shout skyward with
    boundless joy to God an explosion of thanksgiving.  You have
    been blessed.  Jesus suffered to show you the way so you
    could be blessed.  Everybody, all around you since the day
    you were born has played a part in getting you to this 
    space.  They are all from God.  You are surrounded by 
    God.  You can't get away from God :-)  And you finally
    surrender.
    
    The thing is you have to see this for yourself.  This is
    the ultimate reality.  Love and surrender to God is the
    only sane behavior.  And a book that was written by someone
    else can hold you back from seeing what is really around
    you if you believe the book *CAN'T* be wrong and if it
    doesn't see things the way you do.

    I see the Bible as a means to push you forward, to help
    you along, but should not be used to hold you back in
    your search for God.
    
    This way of looking at things has holes in it big enough
    to drive a truck through.  But it's only for those who
    sincerely seek union with God, not for those who merely
    want to stay out of hell.  Guidelines are laid down in
    the Bible and other books and there are many people who
    will help you along the way, but the steps must be yours.
    Ultimately, it is your journey.  If you take a wrong turn
    then you must trust that God will show you and you have
    to be willing to change direction once it's been shown
    to you.  You must be true to the truth.  The ultimate
    truth is God.
    
    Tom

 OK, one more time, on 1 Corinthians 7:25

  Paul is writing to the believers in Corinth.  A major persecution is
  or is about to take place.  Paul is speaking about marriage and states
  that God had not spoken on virgins (unmarrieds) staying single.  Paul
  states that while he has not received a commandment from the Lord, it
  is his judgement that because of the persecution it may be best if
  they stay unmarried.  Nothing Paul states contradicts anything in 
  scripture, and we can also hypothesize that the HOly Spirit inspred
 this "opinion".  Remember, Peter acknowledges Paul's writings as scripture.



  


 Jim

    .14
    
    Sorry for the non-answer, Glen, but we've been down this road many
    times already.  I don't see the point in rehashing this particular
    discussion with you.
    
    
    -steve

    
    What you would lose if you believed in the Bible as the Word of God:
    
    - eternal condemnation
    - autonomy
    - lawlessness
    - hatefulness
    - self-deception
    - confusion
    - despair
    - relativity
    - utilitarian or pragmatic ethic
    - bondage to sin
    - your father, Satan
    - ignorance of life and the world around you
    - worry and anxiety
    - fear of death and dying
    - hopelessness
    - exasperation with life and people
    - racism, sexism
    - and more
    
    jeff

    
>I've always wondered why Jesus never wrote, or had someone write his words
>down directly.  I mean one would think that it would be important to get this
>stuff down right so that it could be passed along through the generations with
>as little confussion as possible.  
    
    The source of the confusion is not the way the Bible was recorded but
    the "source of confusion" is a construct, and a wilfully ignorant one
    at that, to deny that the Bible is the Word of God. 
    
    >Instead, we have a collection of accounts
>which have been the fuel for controversy and debate for years.  I find it hard
>to believe that these written accounts and the confussion that followed was
>what Jesus would have wanted.  I find it more likely that writting stuff down
>was NOT what he would have wanted.  I also wonder why it took as long as it
>did for the gospels to finally be written.  What was standing in their way all
>that time?
    
    What Jesus wanted was perfectly accomplished, Dave.  Again, the idea
    that there is a non-spiritual, valid basis for rejecting the Bible as
    the Word of God is, according to the Bible, completely false.  The
    Bible is rejected as the Word of God by much of humanity because much
    of humanity hates God and is in rebellion against God.  It has always
    been so and will remain so until that final day.

>Once something's been written down, it's been limited.  It's limited to
    >th
>vocabulary and syntax of the language used.  And then it's limited to the 
>efficiency of translation into other languages, and their inherint limitations
>beyond that.  Emphasis and other subtleties apparent in spoken word are
>forever lost once committed to paper.  Writting things down was the best means
>available to mere man back then but it's poor compared to what an omnipotent
>God could provide.  
    
    Your wrong, Dave.  The languages, Hebrew and Greek, in which the
    original manuscripts are written are live languages and we can access
    them today as well as they were used then.  You have no basis for
    saying such things as you do above.  BTW, what would an omnipotent God
    provide?

>Was a better way found?

>Didn't Jesus teach that an internalization of his teachings was what was
>important, and not simple obedience to written law?  Jesus was literate yet he
>chose to teach by example and through parables and did not write anything
>down.  Why?  I wonder, How much red ink would Jesus decorate a copy of the New
>Testemant with if one was presented to him?  I wonder if he would approve or
>disapprove of the whole process of writting down his messages on paper... or
>stone.
    
    Incredible!  Jesus, the Son of God, God Himself, lived completely under
    the Law, a written codification of God's will, and submitted Himself to
    it completely and quoted from it extensively and spoke of it lasting
    forever.

>What is lost in the innerant view?  Well, I believe that Jesus' message was 
>meant to be a simple one.  And I believe that he taught by example.  Yet I see
>the collection of the gospels as intorducing complexity and sometimes
>confussion.  One forced to reconcile everything written might miss the simple
>message by getting bogged down in the details, details which might well be
>artifacts.

>-dave
    
    Your ideas are wrong, Dave.  The Bible itself tells us that Jesus spoke
    that the Holy Spirit would come and guide the Apostles into all truth. 
    Of course, if you don't believe in a sovereign God,  you can't accept
    this explanation for the accuracy of what is recorded in Scripture.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    The Goddess still loves you!
    
                                            Patricia

.13
    
>I also wonder why it took as long as it
>did for the gospels to finally be written.  What was standing in their way all
>that time?

    It was the Holy Spirit who inspired the words of the Gospels.  The Holy
    Spirit was not with the disciples at the time Jesus walked the earth. 
    Jesus said that when he leaves he will not leave his disciples to fend
    for themselves, but will send another to them.  It wasn't until after
    Jesus' death that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
    
    We don't know the exact time that the original Gospels were written.  I
    don't think it is fair to assume on this point, either.  Whether it was
    a few years or a few decades, the end result would have been the same. 
    The Holy Spirit does not forget.
    
>Once something's been written down, it's been limited.  It's limited to the
>vocabulary and syntax of the language used.  And then it's limited to the 
>efficiency of translation into other languages, and their inherint limitations
>beyond that.  Emphasis and other subtleties apparent in spoken word are
>forever lost once committed to paper.  Writting things down was the best means
>available to mere man back then but it's poor compared to what an omnipotent
>God could provide.  

    I've found that the written word is very good at creating pictures in
    the mind, even if we all don't see the exact same picture upon reading
    the same book.
    
    
>Didn't Jesus teach that an internalization of his teachings was what was
>important, and not simple obedience to written law?  
    
    If His teachings were not written down, how could we know them and
    internalize them?  
    
>    Jesus was literate yet he
>chose to teach by example and through parables and did not write anything
>down.  Why?  I wonder, How much red ink would Jesus decorate a copy of the New
>Testemant with if one was presented to him?  I wonder if he would approve or
>disapprove of the whole process of writting down his messages on paper... or
>stone.

    In the beginning there was the Word.  And the Word became flesh...
    
>What is lost in the innerant view?  Well, I believe that Jesus' message was 
>meant to be a simple one.  And I believe that he taught by example.  Yet I see
>the collection of the gospels as intorducing complexity and sometimes
>confussion.  One forced to reconcile everything written might miss the simple
>message by getting bogged down in the details, details which might well be
>artifacts.

    If you don't trust God's Word as being true, then I can see your
    problem.  If you think God allowed man to muddle up His plan of
    salvation, then I can see your pov.  I see things quite differently,
    but then again, the Bible doesn't confuse me.  Not that I understand
    everything or know all the secrets therein, but I can read it and
    understand the basic message of what I read.  I miss things, to be
    sure, but there is no confusion when I read God's word.
    
    You see, the confusion vanishes when the Holy Spirit teaches.  Without Him,
    there is no real learning or spiritual growth, as we cannot understand
    God's message to us in any fullness.  I can understand how many come to
    the Bible and not understand even the most basic things therein... they
    do no have the Holy Spirit to guide them.
    
    
    -steve

    I disagree with every single point you made Jeff.  But you know what,
    for the sake of living in the spirit which your saviour taught, I won't
    even bother to mention them.  These argumentative ratholes we get in
    are spiritually unhealthy, counterproductive and contrary to the
    teachings of every great spiritual leader know.  For your sake as well
    as mine, I won't do it Jeff.
    
    Have a good one.  I pray that you find peace.
    
    -dave

    It is important not to get down the ratholes.
    
    But it is important for us who hold the Bible to be inspired but not
    innerrant to reflect on how much richer the Bible is when viewed as not
    inerrant.  There are new treasures that are being constantly found
    within the scripture as new foci of study are asking new questions
    about the scripture.  Scripture lives on in a multitude of cultural and
    social settings, because the stories and learnings are so open ended.
    
    Jacob wrestled with the Divine and survived and so can we!

re Note 1267.19 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     Again, the idea
>     that there is a non-spiritual, valid basis for rejecting the Bible as
>     the Word of God is, according to the Bible, completely false.  

        We keep on coming back to the argument that the Bible is 100%
        "God's Word" because the Bible (interpreted as 100% "God's
        Word") says so.

        Actually, since the claim that the Bible is 100% "God's Word"
        is a truly extraordinary one, the burden of proof is to prove
        that it must be accepted as such, not that it be rejected as
        such.

        Bob

>    I disagree with every single point you made Jeff.  But you know what,
>    for the sake of living in the spirit which your saviour taught, I won't
>    even bother to mention them.  
    
    Which points, Dave -the bulleted ones or the other ones?  You can't
    possibly act in "the spirit which my savior taught", Dave.  And your
    idea that you are doing so by first denying what my Savior taught then
    refusing to discuss what my Savior taught, is presumptuous in the
    extreme.
    
    >These argumentative ratholes we get in
>    are spiritually unhealthy, counterproductive and contrary to the
>    teachings of every great spiritual leader know.  For your sake as well
>    as mine, I won't do it Jeff.
    
    What you call an argumentative rathole is simply argumentation.  You
    are unhappy with the results so you throw out the baby and the
    bathwater.  This is unwise of you, the open-minded seeker that you are.
    
>    Have a good one.  I pray that you find peace.
    
>    -dave
    
    I would have a better one if you would stop attributing negative motive
    to my discussion with you and start responding like the open-minded 
    seeker you claim to be.
    
    I have peace with God, Dave.  The fact that you are uncomfortable with
    me and don't like my approach to your discussions here does not affect
    my peace nor represent it.  I believe you are actually struggling with
    being so certainly challenged.  You cannot know peace until you have
    peace with God, Dave.  It is impossible.
    
    jeff

>     Again, the idea
>     that there is a non-spiritual, valid basis for rejecting the Bible as
>     the Word of God is, according to the Bible, completely false.  

>>        We keep on coming back to the argument that the Bible is 100%
>>        "God's Word" because the Bible (interpreted as 100% "God's
>>        Word") says so.

        >>Actually, since the claim that the Bible is 100% "God's Word"
        >>is a truly extraordinary one, the burden of proof is to prove
        >>that it must be accepted as such, not that it be rejected as
        >>such.
    
    I wonder about you, Bob.  Your claim that the belief that the Bible is
    100 percent God's Word is an extraordinary one is totally absurd. 
    Judaism and Christianity have always testified that this is true right
    up until this very day.  On what basis do you assert otherwise?  On the
    testimony of the minority of heretics and apostates?  On the testimony
    of modernism or liberalism, other terms for heresy and apostasy?  I
    don't know where you get your idea on this subject but it certainly
    isn't from history or even present-day realities.

    jeff

    Jeff, you ought to read Steve's reply in .21.  We certainly don't see
    eye to eye on things, but I don't feel like I'm in a boxing ring when I
    reply.
    
    RE .21 (Steve)
    
    So it's believed that Jesus (in person) was replaced by the Holy Spirit
    to guide the disciples.  And prior to this the disciples were not in
    touch with the Holy Spirit?  Not even a little?  At what time did they
    accept Jesus as saviour, before or after his death?  
    
    I've heard that the gospels were written decades after Jesus'
    crucifiction.  No matter.  It just seems odd to me that nothing was
    written down till well after. Wasn't Judas a scribe?  You'd think it'd be
    second nature for him to start writing to get the facts down on paper.
    I sometimes wonder what got in the way.  Did Jesus forbid them from
    writing his teachings down?  Is this why it took them so long to come
    out of the literary closet on this?  It did seem that Jesus was less
    keen on pointing out written word and more apt to try to "write the law
    onto their hearts".  Might he have dissuaded his disciples from a
    knee-jerk reaction of writing things down?
    
    Yes, written word can be very good, but it's far from perfect.  If the
    messages in the bible were meant for everyone, even us and people in
    the near and distant future, and even the illiterate!, you'd think that
    a better means would be provided.  It seems to me that maybe there was.
    If Jesus' message was extremely simple, there'd be no need to write it
    down at all.  The heart of what he taught seemed to describe a
    mindset, something which could and should be described in many different
    ways depending on the social disposition of the audience.  I wonder if
    that was the intended method of passing the message along.  Just a
    thought.
    
    >If His teachings were not written down, how could we know them and
    >internalize them?
    
    Very good question, one that I thought of while writing my earlier
    reply.  I can't answer that other than citing the idea mentioned
    above.
    
    >In the beginning there was the Word.  And the Word became flesh...
    
    Yes, the word became flesh.  The law was exemplafied by the life of
    Jesus.  To me, that'd be a better way to convey the message than
    writing it down on paper.  But then why is not Jesus here, today for
    us to observe?  The spirit of the man remains and serves as a guide.
    But, for us mortals, there's nothing like relating to a mortal being.
    Did the disciples have an unfair advantage?  DId folks that live before
    Jesus' life have an unfair disadvantage?  Where's the equity here?
    
    >If you don't trust God's Word as being true,...
    
    If I had a handle on what God's word is, then I'd trust it.  I see the
    Bible (and many other sources) as containing some of God's word and for
    that reason I search for truth in it.  I suppose it all comes down to a
    matter of faith... faith that the Bible = total truth.  And I'm not
    into leaps of faith.
    
    >You see, the confusion vanishes when the Holy Spirit teaches.
    
    Yes.  But, as Tom and Patricia and others have pointed out, I believe
    that the Holy Spirit can come to someone from more than one direction.
    
    >I can understand how many come to
    >    the Bible and not understand even the most basic things therein
    
    Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is necesary for understanding
    anyting in the Bible?  
    
    -dave
                        

| <<< Note 1267.16 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>


| Paul is speaking about marriage and states that God had not spoken on virgins
| (unmarrieds) staying single. Paul states that while he has not received a 
| commandment from the Lord, it is his judgement that because of the persecution
| it may be best if they stay unmarried.  

	And this is fine. But it is his own opinion in a book which is supposed
to be God's Word. 

	And if the Holy Spirit is guiding Paul, why wouldn't Paul give credit
to God? Surely the Holy Spirit would have told him who this message was coming
from. To *me*, this shows that Paul was not completely following the Holy
Spirit, and because of that his opinion could have faults. Why? Because if you
aren't following God 100%, then your own human influences can cloud what God
really wants done.

	Here is an example:


Person:	Jim, you have been so helpful to me. You're such a wonderful guy!

Jim A:	Hey, I try to help when I can.  (Jim not following the HS 100%)

Jim B:	I didn't help you, God did. (Jim following the HS 100%)


	While this may not make you agree with my position, I hope it helps
show you what my position is.

| Nothing Paul states contradicts anything in scripture, 

	Jim... is there anything in Scripture that states one should be giving
credit to Them and not to themselves? If so, then didn't Paul contradict that?

| and we can also hypothesize that the HOly Spirit inspred this "opinion".  

	I agree.

| Remember, Peter acknowledges Paul's writings as scripture.

	Again.... using the Bible to prove itself.



Glen

    >Jeff, you ought to read Steve's reply in .21.  We certainly don't see
    >eye to eye on things, but I don't feel like I'm in a boxing ring when I
    >reply.
    
    I'm not Steve.  Don't confuse style with motive.  What's wrong with
    boxing anyway?
    
    jeff
    

| <<< Note 1267.29 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| I'm not Steve.  Don't confuse style with motive.  What's wrong with
| boxing anyway?

	Then go box with God and see where that gets you.


Glen

    Well, I guess you told him Glen!!

    |	Mike, what they prove is that the Bible is not inerrant. 
    
    Glen, as Steve said, this is bad logic.  To quote a phrase that is
    often directed at us in here: "You are putting God in a box."

|I've always wondered why Jesus never wrote, or had someone write his words
|down directly.  I mean one would think that it would be important to get this
    
    He did.  the same finger that wrote the 10 Commandments in stone also
    wrote in the dirt when the woman was caught in adultery in John 8. 
    YHWH wrote the Torah, Tanakh, and the New Testament.
    
    Mike

    I guess what I meant to say in .15 was that it is good, right and
    fitting that the Bible is *not* inerrant.

    Or maybe it is inerrant.  It's just we're not using it the way
    we should.

    At different times different parts of the Bible speak to us.
    At times, certain parts of the Bible are inappropriate for
    our situation.  Each part may be valid in it's own time.

    There are times when Jesus is the only way and times when
    He is not.  There are/were times when women needed to be
    "modest" and other times when that modesty can/should be
    relaxed.  There are times when it is appropriate to turn
    the other cheek and other times it is appropriate to 
    fight back.  There are times when it is right for a person
    to fear God and other times when love is the only possible
    response.

    I guess it's up to us to determine when what part of the
    Bible is right for whatever situation.  That's when you
    have to go beyond the Bible and listen to the Holy Spirit.

    But trying to follow the whole thing all the time is like
    chasing after your tail.  It gets even funnier if you 
    don't even have a tail :-)

    Just a thought.  Anyone have any opinions?

    Tom

    Re .25 (Jeff)
    
    >...then refusing to discuss what my Savior taught...
    I enjoy discussion on what your saviour taught.  But you don't discuss
    Jeff, you fight with, insult and degrade anyone who does not hold your
    beliefs.  This is why I refuse to discuss the matter with you.
    
    >You are unhappy with the results...
    Yes, I am unhappy.  The results of our discussions do not contribute to
    my understanding of the truth, whaterver that may be.  I try to read
    between the insults and threats of dammnation for morsels of truth.
    But I find little.
    
    >...the open-minded seeker that you are
    But I can get so much more from others who hold the same beliefs that
    you do.  So why shold I waste the time with you?
    
    >I have peace with God, Dave.
    I'm sure you think you do.
    
    >I believe you are actually struggling with being so certainly challenged.
    Ohhhh no. Not at all.  It just gets to a point where your "challenges"
    don't even merit a response.  
    
    >You cannot know peace until you have peace with God, Dave.
    I'm getting there.  I've discoverd that one important step in that
    direction is to defuse these negative arguments I've been having with
    you.
    
    Oh yay, I don't box but I do play hockey.  I try to limit my anger
    venting to the rink.  If you want some of thet, let me know.
    
    
    -dave

    |    Jacob wrestled with the Divine and survived and so can we!
    
    Jacob was a man of God and severely committed to Him in every sense of
    the Word.

    
    >...then refusing to discuss what my Savior taught...
    >>I enjoy discussion on what your saviour taught.  But you don't discuss
    >>Jeff, you fight with, insult and degrade anyone who does not hold your
    >>beliefs.  This is why I refuse to discuss the matter with you.
    
    I won't beg you to point out how I "fight with, insult, and degrade
    anyone...".  I'll just say that I see it very differently.
    
    >You are unhappy with the results...
    >>Yes, I am unhappy.  The results of our discussions do not contribute to
    >>my understanding of the truth, whaterver that may be.  I try to read
    >>between the insults and threats of dammnation for morsels of truth.
    >>But I find little.
    
    You can say this all you want, Dave.  You are unhappy, in my opinion,
    because the truth does not contribute and support you continuing with
    your worldview, it challenges you and it does not acquiesce.  The fact
    that you view "threats of damnation" as something to read between
    rather than face squarely is clear indication, in my opinion, of your
    denial of a clear truth in support of maintaining your own worldview.
    
    >...the open-minded seeker that you are
    >>But I can get so much more from others who hold the same beliefs that
    >>you do.  So why shold I waste the time with you?
    
    If you get so much more from others who supposedly hold the same
    beliefs as I do, I have to question what they are giving you if it is
    not challenging you, angering you, changing you, and ultimately the
    only important thing you need, the way to Christ's cross for the 
    forgiveness of your sins, a changed life, and everlasting life with 
    Jesus Christ.
    
    >I have peace with God, Dave.
    >>I'm sure you think you do.
    
    I know I do!  The Bible and my spirit and those who know me know I do.
    You don't know what peace with God is, Dave.  How can you measure it in
    others?
    
    >I believe you are actually struggling with being so certainly challenged.
    >>Ohhhh no. Not at all.  It just gets to a point where your "challenges"
    >>don't even merit a response.  
    
    I still think so contrary to your assertions.  You really have no other
    basis for your response to me, in my opinion. 
    
    >You cannot know peace until you have peace with God, Dave.
    >>I'm getting there.  I've discoverd that one important step in that
    >>direction is to defuse these negative arguments I've been having with
    >>you.
    
	Maybe you'll have peace with the "little god Dave" but the God of
    the universe, Jehovah, the Lord, Jesus Christ, the one who is causing
    your existance this very moment requires more than your pitiful attempt
    at self-control, to be at peace with Him.  He demands your very life
    and devotion to Him in the power of His Son, Jesus Christ.   
    
    >>Oh yay, I don't box but I do play hockey.  I try to limit my anger
    >>venting to the rink.  If you want some of thet, let me know.
    
    Hockey is for sissies, Dave. ;)
    
    jeff

|    Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is necesary for understanding
|    anyting in the Bible?  

2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
 they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
 spiritually discerned.
2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of
 no man.
2:16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we
 have the mind of Christ.

re Note 1267.38 by PHXSS1::HEISER:

>                                    -< 1 Corinthians 2 >-
> 
> |    Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is necesary for understanding
> |    anyting in the Bible?  
> 
> 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
>  they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
>  spiritually discerned.
> 2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of
>  no man.
> 2:16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we
>  have the mind of Christ.
  
        Of course, this is referring to the understanding of any
        spiritual things, including but not limited to the Bible.

        Bob

>                                    -< 1 Corinthians 2 >-
> 
> |    Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is necesary for understanding
> |    anyting in the Bible?  
> 
> 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
>  they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
>  spiritually discerned.
> 2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of
>  no man.
> 2:16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we
>  have the mind of Christ.
  
>>        Of course, this is referring to the understanding of any
>>        spiritual things, including but not limited to the Bible.

>>        Bob
    
    There are *no* "spiritual things" that a Christian could be expected to 
    understand that are not directly provided for in or derived from biblical 
    principles.
    
    jeff

>    There are *no* "spiritual things" that a Christian could be expected to 
>    understand that are not directly provided for in or derived from biblical 
>    principles.

    You've taken this life and world that your master has given
    to you and burried them in the sand  because you fear what 
    the master might do if you made a mistake.

    Tom

>    There are *no* "spiritual things" that a Christian could be expected to 
>    understand that are not directly provided for in or derived from biblical 
>    principles.

>>    You've taken this life and world that your master has given
>>    to you and burried them in the sand  because you fear what 
>>    the master might do if you made a mistake.

>>    Tom
    
    It is convenient for you to take your position, Tom, but it is not
    legitimate or informed.  There is no correlation between accepting the
    testimony of the Scriptures and fear of failure.
    
    jeff

    Re .38 (Mike)

    Then it would seem a difficult loop for a nonbeliever to enter.  I mean
    it's been said that the wisdom of the Bible can only be known to those
    with the Holy Spirit.  And it had been said previously that the only
    way you can truely have the Holy Spirit is by accepting Jesus as
    Saviour.  And it had also been said that the Bible is the only reliable
    source of knowlege about Jesus, including the fact that he is the
    Saviour.

    See the problem?

    Jesus as Saviour is only known in the Bible, a source which will only
    disclose it's truths to those with the Holy Spirit.  And one cannot get
    the Holy Spirit without first accepting Jesus as Saviour... which is
    impossible because that truth comes from the Bible.

    Is this an unintentional Catch-22?

    I'm just trying to break down the wall that biblical wisdom is reserved
    for believers only.

    -dave

    .27 (Dave)
        
>    So it's believed that Jesus (in person) was replaced by the Holy Spirit
>    to guide the disciples.  
    
    I wouldn't exactly use the word "replace", but I think that you have
    the general idea.
    
>    And prior to this the disciples were not in
>    touch with the Holy Spirit?  Not even a little?  
    
    I wouldn't go quite that far.  It is safe to say that the Holy Spirit
    took on a more powerful presense in the world after the baptism of the
    Holy Spirit (which was quite a flashy event  8^) ).
    
>    At what time did they
>    accept Jesus as saviour, before or after his death?  
 
    They could not accept Jesus as "savior" until after He paid the price
    for their sins, only then could they accept this sacrifice.  Some did
    call Jesus "Lord" before this time, however.  There is an example of one
    desciple knowing that Jesus was God, but even this disciple didn't
    understand (until afterward) what exactly Jesus was going to do and
    why.  It took Jesus' resurrection (and personal appearance) to snap then 
    out of their sorrow.  It must have been quite a revelation when it finally 
    dawned on the disciples what Jesus did for them.  8^)
       
>    I've heard that the gospels were written decades after Jesus'
>    crucifiction.  No matter.  It just seems odd to me that nothing was
>    written down till well after. 
    
    It really doesn't seem that odd to me.  I think the
    perspective of "after the fact revelation" was done in order that God's
    word would be written in a specific manner - by His design.
    
>    Yes, written word can be very good, but it's far from perfect.  
    
    The only "perfect" way, is for God to come to each individual and write
    down His will and Word in our hearts.  To do this, however, goes
    against His choice to give us free will.  Instead, He left a hole in
    our hearts... a God-sized hole - so that we would seek Him on our own
    (or not, if that is our choice).
    
    The interesting thing about His plan, is that the seeker has something
    to find - a love story written to us by God himself.  He made sure we
    would have this "testament" of His love to read when we are ready to
    believe.  And when belief enters our hearts, and we accept the hard
    facts about ourselves (we are sinners and can do nothing to wipe away
    our guilt of crimes against a Holy God), we come to the Father through
    a narrow path left open by His Son, Jesus, by accepting His sacrifice
    on our behalf.  When we accept that He is the way, we are opened up to a 
    whole new world - a world in which God reveals Himself to us in our 
    everyday lives... and writes His laws upon our hearts.
    
>    If the
>    messages in the bible were meant for everyone, even us and people in
>    the near and distant future, and even the illiterate!, you'd think that
>    a better means would be provided.  It seems to me that maybe there was.
    
    Evangelism here, missionaries abroad... but still the Word of God is
    needed - it's the very basis of making disciples of the nations.  
    
>    If Jesus' message was extremely simple, there'd be no need to write it
>    down at all.  
    
    It is simple.  However, there is much more in the Bible besides
    salvation, and I know of no better way to pass it down (with any
    accuracy) through the generations than to write it down.  
    
>    Did the disciples have an unfair advantage?  DId folks that live before
>    Jesus' life have an unfair disadvantage?  Where's the equity here?
 
    There is no equity in circumstance nor situation.  There is equity
    where it counts, though, and that is at the judgement seat of Christ.
    If you've had spiritual advantages (like being discipled by Jesus
    himself), then I imagine much more is expected of you.  If your
    circumstances make coming to Jesus difficult, then that is taken into
    account, too, when your works are looked upon.
       
>    If I had a handle on what God's word is, then I'd trust it.  
    
    It requires faith.  But once you take this step, you will find that
    many things that were once murky become crystal clear.
    
>    I suppose it all comes down to a
>    matter of faith... faith that the Bible = total truth.  And I'm not
>    into leaps of faith.
 
    Is the Bible "total truth"?  No.  It does not contain every universal
    truth - that would require a complete understanding of who God is.  I
    think this is reserved for life with God throughout eternity.  What the
    Bible contains is spiritual truths that we need to know while on this
    earth, as well as behavioral guidelines for our spiritual, mental and
    physical benefit.  It is God's revealtion of Himself, to us.  
    
    Oh, and let's not forget prophesy... one of my favorite studies.  But 
    that's fodder for another topic.  8^)
         
>    Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is necesary for understanding
>    anyting in the Bible?  
 
    No.  Anyone can pick up the Bible and understand the stories within to
    a point.  There is a point where further understanding is only obtained
    through the Holy Spirit.  I think this line is drawn in different areas
    for different people, dependant upon the current state of the reader's 
    heart.
       
    
    
    -steve                    

>    Then it would seem a difficult loop for a nonbeliever to enter.  I mean
>    it's been said that the wisdom of the Bible can only be known to those
>    with the Holy Spirit.  And it had been said previously that the only
>    way you can truely have the Holy Spirit is by accepting Jesus as
>    Saviour.  And it had also been said that the Bible is the only reliable
>    source of knowlege about Jesus, including the fact that he is the
>    Saviour.
    
    You've misunderstood, Dave.  Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of God's
    people.  One cannot be reconciled to God, that is, move from being
    condemned to being justified, except by spiritual rebirth which
    accompanies repentance and trust in Christ, God's own sacrifice for our
    sin.  The gospel (that is, the good news, the message of Christ's
    reconciling work on our behalf as recorded in the Bible) is freely 
    offered to all and is clear and simple to the reader and hearer of that
    message.
    
    I believe what you refer to as "wisdom" is actually the deeper meanings
    of life and explanations of God, our relationship to Him, the universe
    and so on.  This sort of wisdom is not available to the unbelieving
    reader of the Scriptures.  This is presumption.  God promises nothing
    but a totally just condemnation of the unbeliever.  His promises of
    knowledge of mysteries and so on is reserved for those who have been
    reborn.  All of this knowledge is owned and distributed in Christ, it
    cannot be accessed or understood outside of Him.  And the unbeliever
    may only approach Christ on the basis of repentance and unequivocal
    spiritual need.  Once rebirth occurs, the Scriptures reveal themselves,
    but even then it takes much study and struggle with some mysteries and
    deeper things in order to understand. 

    >See the problem?
    
    I think the problem is gone now, isn't it?

    >Jesus as Saviour is only known in the Bible, a source which will only
    >disclose it's truths to those with the Holy Spirit.  And one cannot get
    >the Holy Spirit without first accepting Jesus as Saviour... which is
    >impossible because that truth comes from the Bible.
    
    The Bible will reveal the gospel to the simple but it will not give up its 
    treasures to the unbeliever.

    >I'm just trying to break down the wall that biblical wisdom is reserved
    >for believers only.

    >-dave
    
    Jesus talks about the man who climbs over the fence instead of walking
    through Him, the open gate.  That man will have no part of Him.
    
    jeff

 Z   His promises of
 Z   knowledge of mysteries and so on is reserved for those who have
 Z   been reborn.  All of this knowledge is owned and distributed in Christ,
 Z   it cannot be accessed or understood outside of Him.
    
    This is very much the case...as Jesus spoke this to the apostles....when
    the apotles asked Jesus why he spoke in parables.  He stated that to
    you the keys to all knowledge and mystery have been given but to the
    pharisees they have not been given.
    
    -Jack 

|    Then it would seem a difficult loop for a nonbeliever to enter.  I mean
|    it's been said that the wisdom of the Bible can only be known to those
|    with the Holy Spirit.  And it had been said previously that the only
|    way you can truely have the Holy Spirit is by accepting Jesus as
|    Saviour.  And it had also been said that the Bible is the only reliable
|    source of knowlege about Jesus, including the fact that he is the
|    Saviour.
|
|    See the problem?
    
    No because you forgot some important things.  The Holy Spirit in the
    Gospel of John tells us that nobody comes to the Father unless He draws
    them.  He also tells us that Christ even gives us the faith to accept
    Him as Lord and Savior.  He does all the work, you just have to
    believe.  Last but not least, Jesus Christ says in the Beattitudes
    (Gospel of Matthew):
    
    5:6  Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
    for they shall be filled.
    
    Dave, Jesus loves you and died for you.  He's been drawing you to Him
    in all these years you've been searching.  God has placed a spiritual 
    yearning for Him in all of us that only He can satisfy.  Put away your
    pride and stop rejecting Him.  Ask Him into your heart and life right
    now to be your Lord and Savior.
    
|    I'm just trying to break down the wall that biblical wisdom is reserved
|    for believers only.

    Dave, you'll break down the wall when you embrace Jesus Christ into
    your life.  It is more than reasonable to understand that a spiritual
    book has to be spiritually discerned.
    
    In Christ,
    Mike

    Faith really is very simple.  It is just a letting go.
    
    It is too bad that so many have made it so cloudy and so complex with
    all the theologian mumble jumble.
    
    Now as a budding theologian, the mumble jumble is interesting.  It just
    is not the real thing!
    
    
                                        Patricia

    I find the mumble jumble interesting also...otherwise, I wouldn't be
    here...right?! :-)  However, I find it disturbing that you cling to
    Paganistic views and then try to use scripture to support your belief
    system.
    
    -Jack

>    Faith really is very simple.  It is just a letting go.

    I feel the need to simplify.  Talking too much, especially
    here, dilutes the essence.  Although, I believe there is
    a little more to it than just letting go.
    
>    It is too bad that so many have made it so cloudy and so complex with
>    all the theologian mumble jumble.

    Yes.  The words become more important than the concepts and
    the concepts become more important than the faith.   The 
    argument becomes the "thing" and faith is just used as a
    weapon.  A poor use of resources.

    Tom

    Jack,
    
    If I believed that scripture did not support my belief system, then I
    would abandon the scripture.  
    
    the more I grow in Faith, the more relevent I find scripture.  
    
    I read scripture differently than you do and therefore what I gain from
    it is different.
    
    I will not give up on scripture, just because it would make you more
    comfortable!
    
                                 Patricia

 Z   If I believed that scripture did not support my belief system, then I
 Z   would abandon the scripture.
    
    Which affirms my belief that you have done it completely backwards.
    
    The cause, whatever it is, should be molded by scriptural tenets. 
    Scripture should never be molded by what you believe is the important
    cause.  Did not the slave owners use scripture to support their own
    cause which in effect, caused them to become a law unto themselves?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Without a belief system, then you have no allegience to anything
    including scripture.  
    
    The beginning point in your belief system seems to be that scripture
    will provide you with what you need.  You start with your belief system
    and then proceed to scripture.
    
    The beginning point of my belif system is that the Divine will guide me
    to what I need.  The more I can strip away the stuff that keeps me from
    listening to and heeding the Divine call, the more in touch I get with
    Spirit.  The more in touch I get with spirit, the more I gain from
    scripture.
    
    The more in touch with Spirit I get, the more my life works and the
    serener I become.  The more this happens, the more my life reflects
    Spirit and the more my life is revealed to others as a reflection of
    Spirit.  If I can live my life with Spirit as the source of my actions,
    then my life will reflect Spirit.
    
    This is a goal, and as an imperfect human I will not meet the goal, but
    I will continue to try.  Fortunately, God does not require perfection.
    
    God reveals godself to us in many ways.  My job is to be actively alert
    to those many ways in which God reveals Godself to me.  
                                                          

    Where we differ, Jack, is I believe scripture was written by
    people.  You believe it was written by God.

    If it is written by people, I don't want to throw away my life
    because of someone's opinions long ago.

    If it is written by God, we ignore it at our peril.
    
    I remember being taught to be skeptical of what I read.
    You probably got the same message.  But I believe you
    were taught that the Bible was different.

    I believe, also, that it is different, but not *that* 
    different.

    Tom

    Judging from what you say and from what I have heard from others who
    attend the Universalist church, the core of belief is that you believe
    there is God...God exists.  You have determined this and I believe
    ultimately most people have an inherent need to believe in God or a
    god...whether it be self or a supernatural being.  
    
    The reason I do go to scripture is obvious.  Scripture outlines the
    nature of God, the person of God, and the attributes of God
    exponentially more than my puny brain would ever be capable of doing.  
    I have learned not to make assumptions about who God is because I know
    that my intellect is unworthy to make such assumptions.  How can we
    possibly know of our own intellect the true attributes of God? 
    
    This is very much why I believe God provided us with the Moses, the
    Daniels, and the Pauls of history.  Prophecy is a necessity to the
    Christian belief system.
    
    -Jack

  Z   Where we differ, Jack, is I believe scripture was written by
  Z   people.  You believe it was written by God.
    
    Well let me qualify this alittle.  I do believe that the Bible was
    written by humans with all its grammatical mistakes and its
    overshadowing of human emotion.  What I actually believe is that
    scripture is God breathed...meaning that while humans wrote it, they
    did not write it of their own intellect or free will.  They wrote as
    they were moved by the Holy Spirit.  
    
    -Jack

    Re .45 (Jeff)
    
    I understand what you have told me and the confussion has cleared up.
    Actually, I was responding to a poit which started with Steve back in
    .21...
    
    >>I can understand how many come to
    >>    the Bible and not understand even the most basic things therein
    
    replied to by me in .27...
    
    >>Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is necesary for understanding
    >>    anyting in the Bible?
        
    and the replied to again by Mike in .38. (1 Corinthians 2 , 2:14, 2:15,
    2:16) From the replies, it was appearing that none of the Bible was
    available to non-believers, a situation which made the "unenterable
    loop" appear to take shape. Like many things, I guess different folks
    have different views on just how much of a believer one has to be to
    understand the Bible.
    
    One thing, it would seem that the difficult mysteries in the Bible are
    really the points where a non-believing "hostile" would "attack" in the
    forum of a debate.  If the Bible states that only believers
    (non-hostiles) have access to the truth regarding the mysteries, might
    this be perceived as a ploy to deflect criticism of sensitive areas? 
    A believer could always state that the non-believer can't, by
    definition, critique the mysteries on the grounds that they can't know
    the truth.  Is this a sort of built in self protection mechanism?
                                  
    -dave
    
    BTW, I found nothing offensive in .45 and am happy to respond.

    |    the truth.  Is this a sort of built in self protection mechanism?
    
    Dave, I can see why you feel this way, but I don't believe it is
    intentional.  The difference in Bible comprehension after Jesus Christ
    saved my soul is so different it is almost indescribable.  The Holy
    Spirit in the life of the believer makes an awesome difference.
    
    Mike

	Jim Henderson.....


		did you get a look at .28 yet?

    
>    I understand what you have told me and the confussion has cleared up.
>    Actually, I was responding to a poit which started with Steve back in
>    .21...
    
    Good!
    
      
   > One thing, it would seem that the difficult mysteries in the Bible are
   > really the points where a non-believing "hostile" would "attack" in the
   > forum of a debate.  If the Bible states that only believers
   > (non-hostiles) have access to the truth regarding the mysteries, might
   > this be perceived as a ploy to deflect criticism of sensitive areas?
    
    Oh, I'm sure it might be perceived that way.  But is it rational to do
    so?  I don't think so.  To argue against the Bible's teachings one has
    to presume that its message is true for the sake of argument.  To
    accept the truth of the Scriptures, even for only the sake of testing
    its truth claims, is to acknowledge that if it is true then whatever it
    says about reality is true and the contradiction to it is false.  I
    assure you that the statements and principles which teach the
    unbelieving person's inability to accept and understand the deeper
    meanings and treasures of Scripture are not to prevent argument and
    inquiry but to simply state the central truth of the actual difference
    between the unbelieving and the believing, which is not a matter of
    intellect but a matter of metaphysics and simply presented as reality
    reflecting spiritual differences.  One would have to see a conspiracy
    throughout the ages reflected in Scripture, against all odds and
    information concerning the character of the "conspirators" to believe in 
    a purposeful strategy for self-protection from inquiry.
    
>    BTW, I found nothing offensive in .45 and am happy to respond.
    
    Well, I'm practicing.
    
    jeff

 Sure did. Why?

    Re .60 (Jeff)
    
    >I assure you that the statements and principles which teach the
    >unbelieving person's inability to accept and understand the deeper
    >meanings and treasures of Scripture are not to prevent argument and
    >inquiry but to simply state the central truth of the actual difference
    >between the unbelieving and the believing, which is not a matter of
    >intellect but a matter of metaphysics and simply presented as reality
    >reflecting spiritual differences.
    
    Holy Moly!  I've got to say that I had to reread that one 3 times
    before attempting to digest it :-)  
    
    Anyway, I agree that it's a question of whether it was "intended"
    as a "self protection mechanism" or not.  It probably was not, but
    it probably gets used as such.  
    
    I see the concept of miracles as being akin to this.  If miracles are
    possible (as "With God, all things are possible."), then any biblical
    event which seems physically impossible can be channeled over to the
    space of miracles, a realm in which by definition someone like a critical
    scientist cannot pursue the topic ferther.  Noah's Ark lies in that
    realm.  But when the event can stand firm on it's own against the
    skeptics, it is drawn out as a tool to demonstrate the veracity of the 
    Bible.  The fact of Jesus' crucifixion lies in this realm.  The realm
    of miracles might (and is) viewed by skeptics as a fabricated "safe
    place" to put sensitive biblical events out of the reach of attackers.
    
    RE .47 (Mike)
    
    >5:6  Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
    >for they shall be filled.
    
    Well, if this works for seeking after the truth, I should be OK.  I try
    to be righteous but fall short a lot (like when I crucified some jerk
    against the boards last night playing hockey ;-)).
    
    >Put away your pride...
    
    I'm not a very proud person, believe me.  This is why I had such a hard
    time with and eventually quit the Marine Corps.  What might seem as
    pride in this forum is more of "sticking with" explanations which in my 
    mind hold a higher probability of reflecting the truth, however low
    that probability might be.  So when posed with the two options of
    believing that all in the Bible is truth, or that some of it is the
    truth, I stick with the latter... not out of pride but out of a desire
    to be closer to the facts.
    
    >...and stop rejecting Him.
    
    I don't reject Him.  I think it's fair to say that I accept him, but in
    a different way.
    
    >Ask Him into your heart and life right
    >    now to be your Lord and Savior.
    
    Again?  OK.  But it hasn't worked for a long time now.  I think I
    explained all this before in other strings.  
    
    
    -dave
    
    

|    Again?  OK.  But it hasn't worked for a long time now.  I think I
|    explained all this before in other strings.  
    
    Were you sincere when you asked Him into your life and forgive you of
    your sin?  Did you get involved in activities to help you grow
    spiritually like prayer and studying His Word?  If so, why do you think
    it hasn't worked?
    
    curious,
    Mike

| <<< Note 1267.61 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

| Sure did. Why?

	Do you understand where I am coming from now? And even a bigger
question.... do you agree with it?



Glen

 no and no.





  Jim (I'll try to enter a more prolific reply later).

    
    >I assure you that the statements and principles which teach the
    >unbelieving person's inability to accept and understand the deeper
    >meanings and treasures of Scripture are not to prevent argument and
    >inquiry but to simply state the central truth of the actual difference
    >between the unbelieving and the believing, which is not a matter of
    >intellect but a matter of metaphysics and simply presented as reality
    >reflecting spiritual differences.
    
    >>Holy Moly!  I've got to say that I had to reread that one 3 times
    >>before attempting to digest it :-)  
    
    It is quite a run-on, isn't it!
    
    >>I see the concept of miracles as being akin to this.  If miracles are
    >>possible (as "With God, all things are possible."), then any biblical
    >>event which seems physically impossible can be channeled over to the
    >>space of miracles, a realm in which by definition someone like a critical
    >>scientist cannot pursue the topic ferther.  Noah's Ark lies in that
    >>realm.  But when the event can stand firm on it's own against the
    >>skeptics, it is drawn out as a tool to demonstrate the veracity of the 
    >>Bible.  The fact of Jesus' crucifixion lies in this realm.  The realm
    >>of miracles might (and is) viewed by skeptics as a fabricated "safe
    >>place" to put sensitive biblical events out of the reach of attackers.
    
    Just remember, the skeptic, the empiricist to be exact, has
    purposefully limited his realm to exclude the consideration of
    "miracles".  It is an arbitrary decision.
    
    jeff    
    

    >    Just remember, the skeptic, the empiricist to be exact, has
    >    purposefully limited his realm to exclude the consideration of
    >    "miracles".  It is an arbitrary decision.
    
    Yes, they do.  But they deem many things as being impossible, like...
    
    1) The weight of a piece of steel cannot be > or < what's dictated by a 
       formula.
    2) Asphalt cannot expand more than what's dictated by some other
       formula.
    3) A bed of basalt cannot support > 'X' tons per sqr foot before
    breaking.
    
    etc...
    
    These things might seem to limit their horizons but they also allows
    them to build things like bridges.  
    
    But I think it's largely a matter of faith.  When posed with deciding
    whether biblical miracles are fiction or truth, the former seems more
    probable, again, from the perspective of someone who acts on personal
    experiences as opposed to faith.
    
    I expect.
    
    -dave
    

re Note 1267.66 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     Just remember, the skeptic, the empiricist to be exact, has
>     purposefully limited his realm to exclude the consideration of
>     "miracles".  It is an arbitrary decision.
  
        The boundary between causes that can be perceived by physical
        means and the miraculous would seem to be a rather clear,
        distinct boundary -- of all the decisions one could make, it
        is one of the least arbitrary.

        Bob

>     Just remember, the skeptic, the empiricist to be exact, has
>     purposefully limited his realm to exclude the consideration of
>     "miracles".  It is an arbitrary decision.
  
>>        The boundary between causes that can be perceived by physical
>>        means and the miraculous would seem to be a rather clear,
>>        distinct boundary -- of all the decisions one could make, it
>>        is one of the least arbitrary.
    
    It is very arbitrary.  The truth is that miracles cannot exist at all
    according to the skeptic. 
    
    jeff

        Bob

    >he truth is that miracles cannot exist at all
    >    according to the skeptic.
    
    According to the definition I got from my dictionary, this may or may
    not be true... "An extraordinary or unusual event that is considered to
    be a manifestation of divine or supernatural power".
    
    The event has to be extraordinary or unusual, but not necessarily 
    impossible.  The cause of the event is defined to be divine.  A
    "skeptic" does not claim that God does not exist.. he may.. and
    miracles "may" be possible in that light.  An atheist would have to
    deny the possibility of miracles because (s)he would deny the existence
    of a miracle's cause.
    
    -dave

.69

>    It is very arbitrary.  The truth is that miracles cannot exist at all
>    according to the skeptic. 

    I've never heard the notion before that a skeptic cannot be open to
the possibility of miracles.  The qualifications must've gotten much
stiffer.

Richard