Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

      Hi,
    
        My wife taped it and I saw it Saturday night.
    
        The main thought I had is that while the focus of her
        experience was Jesus, she did not quote or refer to the
        word of God one single time.
    
        In consideration of certain doctrinal things I won't get 
        into and of the above, I think at best her experience was
        purely physiological and at worst a delusion from the devil.
        The second cannot be considered not possible.  After all,
        Satan shall appear as an angel of light.
    
        That one point is just so significant to me.  There was not
        an iota's worth of sense of her drawing attention to the
        word of God.  I can't reconcile that with the notion that this
        was an experience from the Lord.
    
                                                     Tony

re Note 919.1 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>         That one point is just so significant to me.  There was not
>         an iota's worth of sense of her drawing attention to the
>         word of God.  I can't reconcile that with the notion that this
>         was an experience from the Lord.
  
        But you said that she did draw attention to Jesus.  The
        purpose of the Bible is to draw attention to Jesus.  When one
        has a direct experience of Jesus, why would Jesus
        necessarily draw that person's attention away from him and
        towards the Bible?

        Bob

        P.S.  The thought occurred to me the other day that the Bible
        plays a role for some evangelical Protestants similar to what
        devotion to Mary does for some Catholics.  In both cases
        there is a danger that what is intended to draw the believer
        to Christ instead becomes the object of attention.

      Bob,
    
        Yeah, but incorporate Satan's appearing as an angel of light.
        That's my point...not all that point to Jesus are always 
        pointing to Jesus.  Surely Satan will not denounce Christ;
        at least not _so_ apparently.  Yet he will!
    
        To point to Jesus (alegedly) all the while totally ignoring
        the word is (to me) to not point to Jesus.
    
                                                  Tony

    Tony,
    
    Don't you worry about boxing Jesus in.  Are you making decisions about
    how he should appear to someone and how he shouldn't and what evidence
    he should use to substantiate his claim?
    
    Patricia

    .4
    
    
    Patricia,
    
    I'm not Tony... but I happen to agree with what he has written here.  I
    don't worry about boxing Jesus in at all... I worry about counterfeits. 
    That is why He gave us the word of God... it is the measuring stick by
    which to know Christ.  
    
    If it contradicts the Bible, then it isn't God. IMHO.
    
    Otherwise, God could be a mushroom... if you get what I mean.

 HEB 9:27	Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to
		face judgement...

  There have been hundreds of cases such as Betty Eadie's experience, and
 there are dozens of books published that speak of these types of 
 experiences.

  However, none of these people experienced true death. If they experienced 
 true death, they would not be around to tell us about their experience.

  People from different parts of the world have had these types of 
 experiences, and it is interesting that when they were interviewed, they
 saw their own versions of saviors in their visions. Supposed Christians
 saw Jesus, Budhists saw Budha, followers of Zoroaster saw him, and so on.

  1 JHN 4:1	Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test
		the spirits to see whether they are from God,...

  How do we test the spirits to see if they are from God ???
 We should test it by the Word of God, and not by someone's experience.
   
 Oleg
    

    I prefer to worship a living God, powerful for all times, forever
    surprising us in how God shows up in each of our individual lifes.
    
    I prefer accepting God for who God is and not comparing and contrasting
    every sacred experience with a book to identify whether my experience
    is authenticate or not.
    
    I prefer to accept another's faith story as their faith story and
    forever marvel at the mystery of the Divine.
    
    I think the  choice is simple.  I choose to worship a living God and
    not a book.
    
    Patricia

    
>    I prefer accepting God for who God is and not comparing and contrasting
>    every sacred experience with a book to identify whether my experience
>    is authenticate or not.
 

     Sounds kinda risky to me..I'd prefer to be sure that it is God who
     I'm experiencing.

      
>    I think the  choice is simple.  I choose to worship a living God and
>    not a book.
    
 
   Absolutely..I certainly don't worship the Bible..its through the Bible that
   I know the God that I worship.  I know of no other way to know Him, and to
   be sure it *is* Him.



Jim

re: Note 919.8 by Jim "Be there" 

>     Sounds kinda risky to me..I'd prefer to be sure that it is God who
>     I'm experiencing.

I think faith itself is inherently risky, as is life.
When we take risks and fall, God is there to pick us up again.
When we take risks and rise, God is there to celebrate with us.

I think I could waste my life away trying to be 100% absolutely sure.

Peace,

Jim

    The Bible is a cookbook, it is a love letter, it is a revelation of
    God, and it is alive..
    
    The problem is that many view the Bible as dead bark.  The Bible is
    ALIVE and powerful, to view it as only a book, robs you of a
    potential spiritual transformation.  
    
    It is not to be worshipped, but it is also not to be thrown on the
    floor or left on a shelf or examined with cold intellect.
    
    
    

    One thing to consider is that the author is a Mormon.

    Jim,
    
    You are asking a question regarding an essential element of Faith.  How
    can I know what God is if I don't have direct proof.  Because you don't
    have faith in God's ability to talk directly with you, you have to rely
    upon a book for your faith.  You cannot allow God to surprise you in a way that is
    different from your book.  Where is the living spirit in such a
    testimony?
    
    Is not faith a belief in that which cannot be seen?  Is not faith a
    belief in that which cannot be proved?  Faith is the ability to live
    with our own limited understanding knowing that no one of us will ever
    have all the answers because no one of us is God.
    
    thousands of people do have faith stories that they proclaim some of
    them seeming quite miraculous.  I would never dare discredit another's
    faith story.  Each does not need to be true for me.  What I look for is
    the value that fatih story has for the individual life.  Does it lead
    that person to the kinds of actions identified with the values of Jesus
    or does it lead away from that kind of life.  Faith is faith.  But it
    is manifested in the works that a person does.
    
    Patricia

  >Because you don't have faith in God's ability to talk directly
  >with you, you have to rely upon a book for your faith.

If this is what you truly believe, you are sadly misinformed.

I prefer to believe that you were writing without really thinking
when you typed the above.

  >What I look for is the value that fatih story has for the individual 
  >life.

You are open to accepting many things as true revelations from God.

Those of us who accept the truth of the Bible are constrained by
the warnings of the prophets who warn us that there will be those
who lie, those who distort the truth as well as those who themselves are
deceived.  We are to test the spirits (and the statements) in any
number of ways.  One of those ways is to determine whether or not
it points to what God has already revealed as truth - His Word.
The prophets of God spend a lot of time discussing and assuming
the truth of God's Word.  Although the lack of such a discussion is
not a 100% clear indicator that this was not the work of God, it is
certainly an indication that we should be *very* careful in ascribing
this as given by God.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    To require the literal words of a book 2000 years old to be the final
    authority on matters of faith, limits God.  If God could inspire a book
    2000 years ago, why could God not inspire a new scripture today? 
    
    If God could appear to Moses and Jesus and Abraham and Jacob what makes
    you think God could not appear to people today?  Because its not in the
    cookbook?
    
    God is much bigger and much stronger and much more alive than any book.
    
    
    Patricia

    .14
    
    Patricia God can, but he won't.  To do so would invalidate what he has
    already inspired.

RE:            <<< Note 919.12 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien" >>>

       
   >    can I know what God is if I don't have direct proof.  Because you don't
   > have faith in God's ability to talk directly with you, you have to rely
   > upon a book for your faith.  You cannot allow God to surprise you in a way that is
   > different from your book.  Where is the living spirit in such a
   > testimony?
    

    Please do not tell me that I do not have faith in God's ability to talk
    directly to me.  God speaks to me, of that I am sure.    

    I do not understand "allow God to surprise you"...what does "surprise"
    mean in this context?



    Jim


  

RE:            <<< Note 919.14 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien" >>>

       
   > To require the literal words of a book 2000 years old to be the final
   > authority on matters of faith, limits God.  If God could inspire a book
   > 2000 years ago, why could God not inspire a new scripture today? 
    

     The answer is in the "book".


   

   > God is much bigger and much stronger and much more alive than any book.
    
    
    How can you be sure its God you're talking about?

    God could inspire today, but He wouldn't contradict His past efforts in
    doing so.

  >To require the literal words of a book 2000 years old to be the final
  >authority on matters of faith, limits God. 

I put no requirement on what can limit God.  However, I do accept
what the prophets have said about God.

The converse that we should ignore what the prophets have told us
because, for some reason or other, it is no longer true seems to
me to be a much more dangerous position.

Regarding your other points, I certainly agree with you that God
can (and does) appear to people today.  I've never said (nor
suggested) otherwise.  The Bible does not say, "don't believe
anyone who ever said that God appeared to them".  No, rather it
says that SOME will be wolves in sheep clothing.  The obvious
implication is that some will not be, ergo the Bible supports the
idea that God is active today.  I'm surprised that you would
think I believe differently.

God is indeed bigger, stronger and more alive than any book.  That
does not mean the Word of God is not alive (since it claims to
be) or that it is not true (since it claims to be) or that we should
not rely on it (since it claims we should).

Collis

re Note 919.17 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>    > God is much bigger and much stronger and much more alive than any book.
>     
>     
>     How can you be sure its God you're talking about?
  
        How can you be sure that you're reading the book correctly?

        History shows that reading the Bible often leads to
        divergent, contradictory interpretations.

        There is *no* certainty based upon interpretation (although
        it is *very* easy for one to convince oneself that there is,
        since one typically sees only one correct interpretation).

        Of course, the classic Christian response to this is that
        the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead one to the correct
        reading.  This brings us to the problematic state of relying
        upon a text for validation of a spirit, and relying upon a
        sprit for the validation of the text (unless, of course, we
        take the mental short-cut and deny that validation is
        necessary for one or the other).

        Bob

      re: .11
    
        Hi Mike,
    
          I didn't know that, but she did say that we all have a divine
          nature (or something like that).
    
                                                       Tony

    Bob:
    
    Let's do a little test more out of curiosity.  I am going to pick a
    passage that is often disputed in this forum because I am interested in
    other interpretations.  Let's choose Romans 1.
    
    "...and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
    burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
    which is unseemly, and receiving the recompense of their error, which
    is due them.  And even as they did not like to gain the knowledge of
    God in their mind, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
    things which are not lawful."  Romans 1:27-28.
    
    Do I want to get into a discussion of homosexuality, homophobia, etc. 
    Not really.  I will challenge you with this though.  People see what
    they want to see.  People see what is expedient for them, for their
    agenda, whatever.  Scripture must be put in context with other
    scripture, otherwise, interpretation can be flawed.
    
    I take the above passage in context with other writings in the Bible.
    How about you?
    
    -Jack
    

  Hi Pat,

    The last thing I want to do is to jump on you; I just want to
    point something out.

    Your position seems to be one of embracing everything.  Now, it
    is at least plausible that there is only one general way, isn't
    it?

    Just for an example...

    Group A:
      This group believes that the heart is recreated by doing good
      works.  So they go around and do good things and they figure
      that's that.

    Group B:
      This group believes that the heart is recreated by a combination
      of doing good works and believing in God.  They figure that this
      combination is what changes the heart.

    Group C:
      This group believes that the heart can only be recreated by God
      and is done so as the heart sees the love of God and is warmed by
      that love.  Faith, a heartfelt appreciation of God's love, allows
      God to mold the character to be like His own.  And as the heart is
      changed, good works result.

 
   I am using the above illustration to simply establish a point.  And
   that is simply that it is not inherently valid that anything can be
   accomplished in any way.  Try as hard as I want, I am not going to
   fly by flapping my arms.  To hold to a 'universal' posture about 
   arriving at flight; i.e. any method will work is not correct.

   All I'm saying is that you seem to have a position that 'God is found'
   by any means.  That they all work.  I suppose this is plausible, but
   a contrasting view is plausible as well.  And that view is simply that
   God has ONE PLAN and man has several plans because man (presently) is
   not fully seeing God's plan.  We're all struggling a bit.

   The above example is pretty fundamental because it strikes at a core
   of religious thought.  On what basis are we justified (made righteouss)?
   Am I justified by pointing to Mecca?  Or by grabbing some crystal and
   channeling?  Or by holding food drives?

   A very general tenor I get from you is that there is an infinite variety
   of methods of bridging that relationship with God.

   All I'm saying is that it is plausible also that there is one plan
   because God knows what He is doing and He has His remedy.

   I think you have a posture that is not self-evidently correct.  Its sort
   of like what were called postulates in geometry proofs - you kind of
   just assumed it.

   Anyway, I know we're all struggling, but I think God has one plan and
   that is to reveal His love to us and our 'work' is to simply appreciate
   His love and in so doing, allow Him to take our hearts in His hands and
   shape them like His own.

   To summarize...one position is that there are many plans, another is that
   there is one plan.  I acknowledge the basis of the one plan position
   being scripture.  I am not sure I have seen a basis/rationale/defense for
   the multiple plan position, just repeated mentions of it.

                                                    Tony

    Tony,
    
    The multiple plan position is Scriptural.
    
    Paul in Corinthians and Romans says salvation is by Faith, and faith is
    a mystical participation in Christ.
    
    Timothy and Titus identify faith as being acceptance of the official
    teachings of the Church(as identified by the author of course)
    
    James defines Faith as Good works
    
    Hebrew defines Faith as endurance in time of presecution.
    
    Jesus tells us what is most important is to Love God and our Neighors.
    
    There is no one plan listed in the Bible.  There are at least these
    five and I'm sure more.
    
    Patricia

re Note 919.22 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I take the above passage in context with other writings in the Bible.
>     How about you?
  
        No argument.

        But that does not establish objective certainty.

        For one thing, the choice of what passages to compare, the
        choice of which constitute the "context", is quite
        subjective.

        Bob

Re: Note 919.24       
POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"                    20 lines  16-MAY-1994 17:08
    
Pat, did they close down Acton?
    
>>    The multiple plan position is Scriptural.
    
>>    Paul in Corinthians and Romans says salvation is by Faith, and faith is
>>    a mystical participation in Christ.

It says nothing about a mystical participation in Christ, nothing at all.
  
"For by grace you have been saved through faith and not of yourselves.  It is
a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2: 8,9.
This passage alone rules out the James argument.  James explanation of 
Faith/Works must be taken into context with other scripture.  Alls James
stated was that faith without works is dead faith, like a tree that doesn't
yield fruit. 
  
>>    Timothy and Titus identify faith as being acceptance of the official
>>    teachings of the Church(as identified by the author of course)
  
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved 
us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:5
Patricia, if you take the two passages above, you will notice there are
conditions to faith.

1.  Works are not a measurement of salvation, only a measurement of the 
strength of faith.
2.  We are saved by GRACE, through faith.  Any hope of eternal life comes from
the Father, not from us at all.
3.  There must take place a washing in our lives.  Jesus and Paul both spoke
many times that sin is what stains us.  Our new life must come from a renewing
by the Holy Spirit.  Without the Holy Spirit, we are condemned.
   
>>    James defines Faith as Good works
  
See comments in 1st paragraph.  James made no such claim.  
  
>>    Hebrew defines Faith as endurance in time of presecution.

True.  You will also note that Jesus said we would suffer for his names sake. 
The apostles were martyred because they spoke boldly on the cross and how Jesus
died for the sin of the world.  
  
>>    Jesus tells us what is most important is to Love God and our Neighbors.
  
Patricia, are you talking about phileo love or agape love?  The apostles showed
agape love because they gave their very lives to tell the world that Jesus 
alone was the only way.  Another point, when one equalizes the horrible 
sacrifice of the cross with other modes of salvation, don't you think that is
kind of like spitting in God's face?  
  
>>    There is no one plan listed in the Bible.  There are at least these
>>    five and I'm sure more.
  
Patricia,... "Neither is there any other, for there is no other name under 
heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved."  I encourage you as somebody I
respect to give your life to Him.  Ask him to save you and exercise the faith
of one who has no hope without the power of the cross and the resurrection
of Christ himself.   I know it would be hopeless for me without Him.

-Jack

    
    ACT 4:12	Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no
    		other name under heaven given to men by which we must
    		be saved.
    
    PROV 14:12  There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the
    		end it leads to death.
    
    JHN 3:16	For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
    		only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not	
    		perish but have eternal life.
    

re .2

;        P.S.  The thought occurred to me the other day that the Bible
;        plays a role for some evangelical Protestants similar to what
;        devotion to Mary does for some Catholics.  In both cases
;        there is a danger that what is intended to draw the believer
;        to Christ instead becomes the object of attention.

Bob, 

This is a good observation and such reasoning will help you to understand
the Jehovah's Witness position on God and Jesus Christ.

Jesus prayed "O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have
known thee; and these know thou hast sent me. I made known to them they
name, and will make it known," John 17:25-26a RSV.

Jesus was sent to earth by God to do his will. One of the main things that
Jesus did during his ministry was to make people aware of his Father's name
and what it stood for. He also said he will continue to make it known (Matthew
28:19,20). Jesus drew attention, not to himself, to God and yet today the
one sent forth (the Messiah) is the object of attention rather than the one
who sent Jesus. Not so amongst Jehovah's Witnesses who also make God's name
known. However, we do respect the authority that God has given Jesus.

Phil.

RE:            <<< Note 919.14 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien" >>>

       
   > God is much bigger and much stronger and much more alive than any book.
    
    
    Note that in Acts 17:11 about the Berean Christians "...they received
    the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily
    whether those things were so"..they measured what they heard Paul, et al
    saying about God and measured it against the Scriptures.




 Jim

    re 919.26
    
    Jack,
    
    The heart of Paul's theology as outlined in Romans and Corinthians is a
    mystical participation in Christ.  1 Cor 2 is one of my favorite
    passages and is congruent with much of my faith.  You are literally
    correct, while describing a mystical participation, Paul does not use
    that phrase.  Paul is however a wonderful mystic.  His understanding of 
    baptistism is a mystical participation in Christ's death, resurrection
    is the promise of a mystical participation in Christ's resurrection. 
    Living our lives in Christ is Paul's message.  This is message of Paul
    that is alive and for all times.  It is the best of the apostles.
    
    When Paul get's down into specific proscriptions it is when he is
    entrapped by his own cultural biases and his own sexual tensions. We
    can get value in these aspects of Paul only when we understand them in 
    terms of the apostles own life and culture.
    
    The theology of James, the Theology of the Author of Hebrews, the
    theology of the Author of the Pastorals, and the theology of each of
    the Gospels is distinct from the theology of Paul.  There is value in
    each of the perspectives and taken together they do complement each
    other.  It is because there is so much depth and distinctiveness in the
    scriptures that the scriptures continue to support a wide diversity of
    faith positions.
    
    It is intriguing for instance to witness the debate in here between the
    trinitarian Christian position and the JW Christian position.  Fully
    versed biblical scholars arguing both side of the issue showing me that
    the scriptures can be used to finally support both sides of the issue
    and therefore neither side of the issue.  Ultimately what we believe is
    a matter of faith.  Ultimately the evidence we use from the Bible to
    support our faith position is in fact based on our faith position. 
    Each of us argues ourselves around in the circle to support what we
    believe not by proof but only by faith.
    
    And that brings us back to the scriptural message that salvation is
    ultimately by faith alone.  Faith in the multiple ways the biblical
    authors define it and Faith in the multiple ways all humanity define it
    today.
    
    And it is glorious.
    
    Patricia
    
    

Re: Note 919.28         
RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"    27 lines  17-MAY-1994 09:21

>>Jesus was sent to earth by God to do his will. One of the main things that
>>Jesus did during his ministry was to make people aware of his Father's name
>>and what it stood for. 

How true and how vital to the salvation of all.  Nobody in their sin condition 
could know the Father without being sanctified, holy and set apart from sin 
before the Father.  

>>He also said he will continue to make it known (Matthew
>>28:19,20). Jesus drew attention, not to himself, to God and yet today the
>>one sent forth (the Messiah) is the object of attention rather than the one
>>who sent Jesus. 

Yes and an excellent passage to affirm this is Philippians 2:7.
"But made himself of no reputation, and took on the form of a bondservant, and 
was made in the likeness of man."  It goes on to say that in humility, he 
humbled himself to death, even death on a cross.  There is no question in my
mind that Christ purpose was to make known the way to the Father and to 
provide the means to fulfill the law and the prophets.   

"Wherefore God has exalted Him, and given him a name above every other name.
That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, in heaven and on the earth,
and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord to the
glory of God the Father." Philippians 2 continued. 

The word, "Lord" in this passage in the greek is Kurios.  Kurios means "master"
as in a master-slave relationship.  Catch the significance here.  If all 
creation in heaven and on earth and under earth are to refer to Jesus as 
master, then the authority that has been given to Jesus is not merely to be
respected, it is to be revered with our very existence.  Philippians 2 also
says that Jesus existed in the form (morphea) of God and didn't need to 
aggressively grasp it.  Why?  Because he already had it.  Iron is iron, whether
it be in the form of an ax or an anvil, it is still iron.   

Jesus is to be worshipped and glorified, just as the angels in Revelation 
worshipped and glorified Him, just as the apostles worshipped Him, just as
Thomas affirmed His identity.  Jesus is to be the object of our faith.

-Jack                                             

    I don't see anything mystical about Paul when traveling down the Romans
    road:
    
Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation.

>>    .32  A mystical experience is one one where there is a direct and
>>    immediate encounter with the Divine.  Paul's experience on the road
>>    to Damascus could be adequately described as anything other than
>>    mystical.
    
  Rich, 
  
  I'm confused, by your definition of a mystical experience, didn't you mean
to say that Paul's experience on the road COULD NOT be adequatly described
as anything other than mystical, seeing how his encounter WAS a direct
encounter with God?

-Jack  

    .32  A mystical experience is one one where there is a direct and
    immediate encounter with the Divine.  Paul's experience on the road
    to Damascus could not be adequately described as anything other than
    mystical.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Just a few thoughts I had while looking through this topic:

I don't have a Bible nearby to list verses, but I recall it
equating Jesus with The Word.  I recall something to the
effect of, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  And
in the beginning of Genesis there's something to the effect
of, The Word was with God and The Word was God, which I
believe shows that The Word (Jesus) is one with God, or God
in the flesh depending on how you look at it.  If you accept
that The Bible is the inspired Word of God (I know that not
all do), then to accept or deny one is to accept or deny the
rest.  I'm not taking sides in any argument, just bringing
up things to ponder.

Also, I'm not sure if it was mentioned already, but there's
a passage in The Bible regarding testing of the spirits to
see if they are of God.  I "think" it says something to the
effect of, any spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ
has come in the Flesh is of God.  Plus there are passages
which use the analogy of knowing a tree by its fruit.  A
good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad
fruit & by their fruit you will know them.  I look at these
as guildelines when considering the validity of these kinds
of things.  Also, I believe that there was a verse in
Revelation regarding strict warnings not to add to the
prophecies written in that book.  Once again, I'm not stating
any opinion on this topic, just pointing out things that
might be good to be aware of.  I read Betty Eadie's book with
these things in mind.

- Tom

    .36  Your points are well taken, Tom.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    PS Welcome to C-P.  Hope you'll introduce youself in Topic 3.
    

    Re: .36 & Tom
    
    That's the first chapter of John.  
    
John 1:1
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Thanks for the corretion & verse listings.

- Tom

    Tom:
    
    In Genesis 2, God said, "..Let Us make man in our image, after our
    likeness."  "Behold, for the man has become as us, knowing good and
    evil."
    
    The fact that God speaks in the plural says it all.  Yet, he insists
    that He is the One true God and that there are no others before Him.
    
    -Jack

    And let's not forget John 1.9, which seems to chronically take a
    back seat to John 3.16.  A most lamentable phenomenon.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

  Re .30  Patricia

  > Utlimately what we believe is a matter of faith.

  Yes.

  Somewhere I think I read in one of your notes that you are Unitarian?

  Do you know of any Trinitarian Universalists? Do you know of any Trinitarian
  Universalists church(es)? 

  Thanks 
   Hank
  

    Hank,
    
    There is no doctrine or dogma associated with the Unitarian
    Universalist Churches.  The Unitarian Churches and the Universalist
    Churches merged in the 60's to form the Unitarian Universalist
    Association.  Each person who is a UU is responsible for deciding
    exactly what that person believes.
    
    The UU churches has moved away from Christianity.  There are a small
    number of UU churches that consider themselves Christian churches and
    about 10% of all UU's who consider themselves Christian, but I know for
    myself and I believe for many UU's the way we live our lives is more
    important than the doctrines we believe in.  For me doctrine is a
    matter of the intellect where true faith is a matter of the heart.
    
    King's chapel in Boston is perhaps one of the best examples of a UU
    Christian church.  Carl Scovel who is the minister their could answer
    your questions much better than I can.
    
    In the suburban Boston area, many of the UU churches have strong
    Unitarian backgrounds.  In Maine, there are many churches with
    Universalist backgrounds.  Perhaps a Universalist oriented UU church
    would also be more trinitarian in Orientation.  Theological diversity
    however is a hallmark of all UU congregations.
    
    Patricia
    major

    Patricia:
    
    If diversity is the hallmark of the UU church, and if we are all
    responsible for what we believe, and if I believe the sharing of the
    gospel as I see it is a must to the core of my belief, would my
    presence be tolerated for long at your church?
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

    Richard:
    
    "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that comes into the
    world".  John 1:9.
    
    What is the significance of this verse, especially in light of Jesus'
    little talk with Nicodemus a few chapters later?
    
    -Jack

 A couple of writers from the Christian Institute (Richard Abanes
and Paul Carden) did some research on Betty Eadie and also interviewed 
her a few months ago. Here are a few highlights of their article:

 - She is a "closet" Mormon, and the book reflects some of her Mormon
   beliefs.
 - According to an article in the Oct. 23, 93 Salt Lake Tribune,
   the apostle Boyd K. Packer called her book 'bunk', a witness said.
 - In 1992 her book was the #1 selling book in Salt Lake City, and
   is used by Mormon study groups, since the book affirms important
   Mormon doctrines.

 - A few of her quotes:
      "I began to see images... of an existence before my life
       on earth...

      "..eventually everyone will be saved.." (even after death)
       (her qualifier is that it will definetely be through Jesus that
        we all return to God)
   
      In the "beyond" Eadie was taught that all religions are necessary
      for spiritual progression of humanity (p.45)

      "At the time of death, we are given the choice to remain on 
      earth until our bodies are buried or to move on... (p. 83,84)

    I see her views as being contradictory to what the bible says...
    
    Oleg    

    The sharing of the gospel as you see it would be tolerated.  You would
    be equally expected to tolerate and listen to the sharing of
    alternative views.  Prosylatizing by any group within the church would
    not be tolerated.  Each person is responsible for their own beliefs but
    each person is also responsible for being respectful to the beliefs of
    others.  The goal of being respectful to the beliefs and spiritual
    development of each member of the community would take precedent over
    your need to try to convert others to your particular perspective.
    
    If you truly embraced the church, I am sure you would learn a whole lot
    and continue to grow in your own spiritual development.  Spiritual
    growth of each individual is one of the key goals of the communitity.
    
    Patricia

.45

    "[Christ] was the true light, which lighteth every (human) that comes
     into the world".  John 1:9.
    
>    What is the significance of this verse, especially in light of Jesus'
>    little talk with Nicodemus a few chapters later?
    
Would that this verse was pounded out to the degree John 3.16 is.

It doesn't say that the Christ provides light only to the "saved," only to
true believers, only to Christians.  It says Christ, the true light, emits
light to every human who enters the world.

I'm fairly sure Betty Eadie would agree.

Shalom,
Richard

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I think the main source of our different understandings
        is in the area of single versus multiple 'plans.'
    
        I believe faith is one single thing; a heart-appreciation
        of God's love and faith allows God to shape the heart according
        to His will. And so I believe we might grope a little with
        interpretation, but the truth would find faith to be a single
        easily defined thing.
    
        But, anyway, thanks for your inputs.  God values the both of 
        us as people and loves us with a love we cannot fathom.
    
                                                God Bless,
    
                                                Tony

    Tony,
    
    If that is your definition of faith then you and I are in 100%
    agreement.
    
                                          Patricia

    There were 3 men dying.  Satan appeared to the first man and said, "You
    belong to me."  The man answered and said, "Oh no, I don't.  I have had 
    many wonderful spiritual experiences and a burning in my bosom that I have 
    been following the right path." Satan answers, "I counterfeited all of 
    those experiences and feelings."
    
    Could you prove that it was not Satan who counterfeited the experiences
    and feelings?
    
    Satan appears to the second dying man and says, "You belong to me." 
    The man says, "Oh no, I don't.  An angel of light appeared to me and told me
    that I was saved."  Satan responds and says, "I appeared as the angel of 
    light."
    
    Could you prove that it was not Satan?
    
    Finally, Satan approaches the third man and says, "You belong to me." 
    The man responds and says, "It is written 'For God so loved the world, 
    that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should 
    not perish, but have everlasting life.'  I am a whosoever."
    
    Which man would you vote for as having assurance of eternal life?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    I'm a whosoever, too.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    The first and second.
    
                                patricia

    >    The first and second.
    
    Patricia, I'd like to see you prove that Satan can't counterfeit those 
    feelings and angelic appearances.  You've put yourself in a difficult
    position.
    
    Mike

re Note 919.51 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Finally, Satan approaches the third man and says, "You belong to me." 
>     The man responds and says, "It is written 'For God so loved the world, 
>     that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should 
>     not perish, but have everlasting life.'  I am a whosoever."
>     
>     Which man would you vote for as having assurance of eternal life?
    
        Mike,

        You chose to finish this third episode differently from the
        rest. :-)  Obviously  Satan (whose reputation is not 100%
        truthful in any event) would say "that's me".

        (As far as the other two are concerned:  if their faith is in
        "good experiences" and a particular vision, then I'd say that
        their salvation is on as shaky a ground as if they said that
        their faith was placed upon a "sacred book."  On the other
        hand, if any of them said that their faith was not in
        experiences, visions, or a book, but upon the one living God,
        obviously they are saved whether they believe those things
        led them to God or not and whether those things were intended
        to deceive or not.)

        Bob

>        You chose to finish this third episode differently from the
>        rest. :-)  Obviously  Satan (whose reputation is not 100%
>        truthful in any event) would say "that's me".
    
    Bob, I guess the Satanists as well as the Christians would object to that.
    ;-)  The Bible says that even the demons tremble at His (Jesus) name. 
    Verbal and written information from people involved in things such as
    exorcism vouch for that verse.  Some pastors I know who have prayed for
    demon-possessed persons say just opening up the Bible creates quite the
    stir in the afflicted person.  This is a heavy subject, but we shouldn't 
    underestimate it's reality.

>        (As far as the other two are concerned:  if their faith is in
>        "good experiences" and a particular vision, then I'd say that
>        their salvation is on as shaky a ground as if they said that
>        their faith was placed upon a "sacred book."  On the other
    >       hand, if any of them said that their faith was not in
>        experiences, visions, or a book, but upon the one living God,
>        obviously they are saved whether they believe those things
>        led them to God or not and whether those things were intended
>        to deceive or not.)
    
    The sacred book is God's Word and the living God lives and speaks to
    His people through it.
    
    Mike

    Christ is God's Word.  The Bible is not Christ, though there are some
    who would exhalt the Book to the level of the Teacher (Rabbi).
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Mike,
    
    Faith would not be faith if it could be proved.  Faith is believe in
    that which cannot be seen or proved.
    
    Bob and Richard mirror my beliefs in this matter.
    
    My test of genuine faith is congruent with Paul's.  It is the effect and
    impact it has on the individual.  People of faith live their whole
    lifes out of that faith.  People of faith are "new creation".
    
    I believe that God is a God of Love.  I believe that God is more
    powerful than any other force.  That is how I know my faith is in the
    living God and not in some false god.  I do believe that some
    "Christians" faith is in the Bible and not in the Living God behind the
    Bible.  I believe that faith in the Bible and not in the Living God is
    faith in a false God.  I also know that true Christianity is faith in
    the "Living God" with the Bible as the instrument of that living God. 
    It is all in the way the Bible is perceived and in some case
    worshipped.  I guess my message is that people that call themselves 
    fundementalists or innerrantists can be just as much in danger of
    worshiping false gods as their more liberal brothers and sisters.
    
                                      Patricia
    
                                   

    I don't worship the Bible, but I respect it as God's Word.  He speaks
    to us through it.
    
    The Word of God in scriptural canon is inspired (God-breathed), inerrant,
    complete (Revelation 22:18-19, Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only infallible 
    rule of faith.  It reveals the origin and destiny of all things; records 
    God's dealings with mankind in the past, present, and future; and focuses 
    on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.  The Bible inspires faith 
    (Romans 10:17) and will make men "wise unto salvation" (II Timothy 3:15).  
    More supportive Scriptures can be found in II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21, 
    Psalm 119:105, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 4:12.
    
II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

II Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    Mike

    I don't worship the Bible, but I respect it as containing the
    message and promise of God, which, I believe, is the word of God.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I just want to say I'm glad we share a common belief as to
        what faith is.  If we could all better learn to somehow 
        catch deeper glimpses of God lifted up for us and in beholding
        that have our hearts warmed...well, a wonderful renovation of
        character would be in store for us!
    
                                                  God Bless,
    
                                                  Tony