The Bible is true?

THE FREEDOM IN CHRIST DOES NOT GIVE US A BLANK CHECK TO SIN.

Pauls Warning- 1 Corinthians 6:9,10

9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

CHRIST DID NOT FORGET ABOUT THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

Reading your post I have no idea what you are talking about. Your wording was both counter diction, and wrong. You stated Christ came to remind the 144,000. First, remind them of what? Second, this event never happened, because it is a future event which takes place after God moves the earth's islands and mountains out of their place. Thirdly you state that Israel's existence today is a big hoax based on the story of Exodus, and then you say there was an interruption of history during the times of captivity of the Israelites, in which they were scattered and they finally intermingled genetically with other races.

At this point, please don't tell me you believe the bible, everything you have stated here has nothing to do with the bible. No where in scripture does it say that Christ came to remind the 144,000. No place in scripture does it say there was an interruption of history. No where in scripture does it state that the jews finally intermingled genetically with other races. You stated Israel's existance today is a hoax, even though the bible clearly teaches that the land of Israel would be established in the latter years.

THE CHRISTIANS OF THE PAST KNEW THE PROPHECIES.

In 1864 a book written by Dr. John Cumming stated. "How comes it to pass that as a nation they have been dispersed over every land, yet insulated, separated, and alone amid the nations? The predictions of their restoration are in words as definite only not yet fulfilled. As a nation they were cut off and dispersed, and it is as a nation that they shall be gathered and restored.

In 1866 an English Bible scholar by the name of James Grant wrote. "The personal coming of Christ, to establish His millennial reign on earth, will not take place until the Jews are restored to thier own land, and the enemies of Christ and the Jews have gathered togethered their armies from all parts of the world, and have commenced the siege of Jerusalem...now the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the mustering and marshaling of these mighty armies, with a view to capturing Jerusalem, must require a considerable time yet."

In 1669 a minister by the name of Increase Mather wrote a book titled The Mystery of Israel"s Salvation. He, too, showed that the jews would return to Palestine and become a nation before their spiritual conversion and the return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

How could these men speak with such accuracy, because they were not lost in symbolism, but they believed the bible as the literal WORD OF GOD.

 

What point are you debating? Did I ever say, even once, that I had deducted from the verses I quoted, that I interpretated them as meaning that the spirit gave us the right to sin with impunity? Is that what you see them as saying? If so, please explain to me how that happened. I’ll do the same.
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Concluding with 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I won’t post the whole passage, I know you have your bible handy, too. Anyway, this passage says that the ten commandments, which is the letter of the law, the ‘written law’, is a law which has jurisdiction within the physical aspect of man, which is the flesh. The flesh is destined to die, regardless of what our mind decides to do (live or die in the second death), and so any laws that circumscribe matters of the flesh are both inherently based from the marker of sin and death. They don’t rely on our conscience or ability to do right, they are specific instructions on how not to do wrong.
Kind of like the first rules of our school days, from kindergarten or first grade: don’t talk without raising your hand, don’t get out of your seat unless you ask, don’t go to the bathroom without telling the teacher, don’t push and shove at recess.
The main idea here, is that even if we don’t do the things we’re not supposed to, which in the OT, could be punishable by death, what were the results? We just got to live a little longer, because we’re going to die anyway. Dead end.
Then Christ came, and told us of a new law, that, if we complied with the requirements, would put us above the dead end of the ‘law of the letter’ and above death, itself. All we had to do was change our center of consciousness from the physical dead end self to the eternal realm of the divine spark which we call the ‘mind’, because that’s the only part of us which has the ability needed to fulfill our obligations under the new law. The new law is much simpler, two basic things, one basic action. This action is something we can do without moving a muscle, and therefore we can actively uphold the law every minute we exist. These two laws do not, in any way, interfere with the law of the letter, because if the positive action of this law is adhered to, then the things we were told not to do can not co-exist in the presence of the second law’s principle. They rely on our new ability to do right which originates from love, and gives rise to our conscienceIt’s a promotion, based on our new higher understandings which come only through the spirit of Christ, and the principle is love. An active behavior which is not manifested originally in the physical sense. It begins in the parts of the mind which are not composed of matter, like our arms, legs, etc. are. It is ethereal spiritual essence, from the divine source of the same. When we rise above the realm of death on earth, we rise also above it’s laws governing the earthly principles, we are not subject to the jurisdiction of death unless we forget the law of love.

Love=light=life
and
law=sin=death
very simple to understand

In the natural order of things, all things ‘above’ surpass the things ‘below’.
Back to school: when we get older and pass through a few grade levels, the tone of the ‘rules’ starts to change. Now we are told, ‘Take your tray to the window after you eat. Bring your homework to class tomorrow. Be courteous to your neighbors and don’t talk and disturb them while they’re studying. Treat the others the way you want to be treated.’ The Golden Rule…
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:40

In no way do I believe I can sin at will. I now have the ability (by the spirit) to be trusted to my own judgment, because if I truly have the spirit, love will determine my every action, and I don’t need a long list of ‘donts’, rather I am promoted to a shorter list of ‘dos’. The natural advancement of development applies to all aspects of our being, physical as well as spiritual. To believe we’re still under the law of the letter is preventing ourselves from obtaining life, and remaining in death. Which means we deny the spirit. That is the only true sin. Denying the spirit, denying love, which is also the same as ‘selfishness’ and ‘ego-centric’.

That’s a given, when you’re governed by the spirit. These physical ‘sins’ are not more powerful than the spirit of truth and so we say ‘death, where is your sting?’ Of course, we must keep constant diligence upon our focus, and not let it stray back to the physical kingdom of death.

 

The origin of their spirit…the seed from which they came.

What, that Jesus didn’t come to awaken sleeping minds? Or the 144,000 being sealed? You can’t be sure of the chronology of the events in Revelation, everyone assumes they’re in the proper order in a 7 year period. But upon closer examination, there are a multitude of possibilities, and it’s not limited to having to be just one of them. Besides, that is totally irrelevant. The 144,000 are the ones whose names have been written in the book of life, where Jesus recorded their names. That is not the same as the great multitude in the white robes, who came out of the tribulation, which we call ‘born again’. These are the ‘gentiles’ in the NT, whom Paul is missionary to. The 144,000 are the ‘other sheep’ that Jesus mentions which are scattered about the world, and are specifically identified in the list of the 12 descendants, in Chapter 7, ‘of all the tribes of Israel’. Have you ever really read that and noticed it is not the same of the 12 tribes as led by Jacob’s son’s? Crucial detail.

So, in order to believe the bible, I am not allowed to believe a single tidbit of anything other than what it literally states? Although you seek proof outside it for it’s own existence? But no chance of considering such as hebrew and jewish history, which, BTW, is not completely contained in the bible in its entirety? Have you not heard of the lost tribes? The assyrian captivity? Orthodox and European jews?

Show me where it 'clearly' teaches that. Show me where it says the children of isreal are the same as the jews, specifically in reference to the 'holy land'.

How can they ‘know’ things that haven’t come to pass, yet, except to believe, unless they are prophets, as well?

You just made a statement against there being an interruption of history and an intermingling. What the heck does cut off and dispersed mean? A prophesy cannot be properly understood if the subjects of the prophesy are mis-identified. You must establish the foundation of such prophesy first thing.

Christ and the jews were enemies with each other! They had him put to death!-- in the most humilitating form of exectution that existed at that time. They continue to deny Jesus is the Son of G-d, and so if we believe Jesus, they are not on his side or his Father’s! He who hates me hates my father… He who rejects me will not be entered into the Kingdom of my Father...
Why would G-d and his people have to besiege their own city? It comes down from the heavens, it’s not the Jerusalem that we already have! Satan and his army attack the city of G-d, but are destroyed before they hardly begin. The idea of the ‘holy land’ is part of the hoax. Show me where that is truly promised. The promise made about the land of canaan in the OT is not about the New Jersusalem spoken of in the NT. All that ‘interpretation’ of prophesy is based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and do not truly originate in the bible. Try to find some substantial proof connecting these OT and NT ideas with certainty, solely within the bible. They are two different masters, and you can’t serve both.

The only prophesies which apply to christians (defined as followers of christ) are in the NT. These are made by Jesus himself, and John, under direction of Jesus.

That’s the whole basis for this debate: you’re trying to prove a reason to believe in Christ using the old testament!

They denied him the first time, and haven't changed their mind yet. Do you think they will?

That's exactly why they do not understand! It’s not all been proven yet, not even half! The proven half is in the bible, and these ‘understanding’ were born a long time later! Nothing been’s proven, you just assume it’s so because these men speak with authority. What about the authority of the bible, and Jesus?

 

Unless we had read the Old Testament we never would of understood who Jesus was. The Old Testament told us who to look for. The future prophecies
which speak of America, Israel, Russia, and other nations are also to be found there, and were placed there long before Jesus entered this world. Both the Old and New Testament speaks of Gods chosen people escapeing Babylon. It is mentioned in Revelation 18:4 and it speaks of this in Jeremiah 51:45. The end time events are also found in Matthew 24:29 sun will darkened and the moon will not give her light, This description will also be found in Joel 2:10,11.
The bible speaks about the abomination of desolation which will take place when the anti christ takes over the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. This temple will be built with the hands of men. This is not Gods temple, that one will come later. In Matthew 24:15 it tells you that this event is spoken about by Daniel the prophet.
The New Testement is telling you to check out the Old Testement. You can read about the anti christ in Daniel 8:9. To understand these prophecies you need both books. They were both authored by God. Wish I had more time to adress this.

 

you can prove things are not true. if the possibility to prove something true exists then the opposite exists.



and what i mean by saying symbolism isn't truth is that symbolism hold truth in a different form. symbolic stories are not meant to be taken literal. they have a message within them. and i honestly don't see the problem in not taking the fact that eve was formed from a rib true or a talking snake brought about the end of their stay in eden. i thought the truth was in the message. not the manner by which we receive it.its many forms if you will.


or just in it's literal form,symbolism signifies or stands for something else. Usually that something is concrete. It is not common for a thought or feeling to develop into a symbol as symbols are universal and represent cultures, traditions and religions of family of origin. Examples of symbols include a crucifix or a menorah, a stop sign or a door knocker. Symbols direct and organize, record and communicate large amounts of information in a quick way. Cultures rely on them to maintain order, discipline and moral ethics.


symbolism is an external account of something. what is internal is truth and hidden by a brief facade.

or at least thats how i see it.

 

I never try and prove something in the Bible is not true, the information I find only verifies what the Bible clearly states. You cannot start messing with the words in the book of revelation. The bible gives a warning to any who would.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. You are so lost in you symbolism that i doubt you can read a sentence with out going off on a tangent. You spend way to much time worrying about symbolism. The bible was written so simple people can understand it.

 

Quote-The bible was written so simple people can understand it.__________________

You sure left yourself open with that one! I'll resist the temptation.

 

i really don't think any christians would try and disprove their own faith. i wouldn't anyway.

however i do think that we should be objective in the matter. if people come to us with questions that try and prove our faith idiotic, all we can hope to do is answer them. i find the oppositions attampts to disprove our faith merely strengthens it in the long run.


let the come raaarrr

 

-Likewise....

The same can be said for Christians

 

You've not even 'proven' that you understand what the bible clearly states. I visited your website and I realize this by some of the things I read there. I can't say the things 'you said' because I'm not clear on whether these are your words or if they are borrowed from another. If they are not yours, then is that really testimony? An effective witness tells things from their perspective, because they have 'seen', with eyes that see.

The main thing that caught my eye was 'accept the bible or reject truth'. Is this about following Jesus or following the words of the bible? Even if you do the latter, in the gospel of John, it clearly states the identity of the Word of G-d.

It does not say 'The word was the bible'.
What does it say?

It doesn't matter what we reject or accept as long as we accept Jesus.
Not the bible.

When a person is baptized, do they confess that the bible is the word of G-d?
No.

Does Jesus say 'The bible is the way, the truth, and the life?'
No.

Accepting Jesus is the only Way, not accepting that the bible is true. No matter how you try to prove it or argue that point, it doesn't change the fact that believing in the bible will not get you into eternity. If you truly trust Him then you know the bible is true. Whether 'provable' by the standards of man, or not. How can you hold the bible to those standards? That is the opposite of exalting the word of G-d.

That, sir, is the real myth. Literal belief in the bible is simple, but a deep understanding of the truth within the bible is the narrow gate and the difficult way.

Prophecy doesn't prove Jesus is the son of G-d, unless you believe. Nothing does, unless you trust that He is.

You may think I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll tell you, I've had 27 years of seeking the truth, and all that time I did it with the faith that Jesus was what the bible said He was, because somehow I knew in my heart it was true. I've been down a long road, and I'm still traveling. But the light just keeps getting brighter. The dimmest it was, was when I was a literalist. I believe that's a necessary step for some, perhaps all of us. But unless you keep your mind open and don't stiffen your neck, you'll never need those sunglasses in your pocket. The secrets hidden within the bible are a reward for the searchers, they are not a 'gimme' for the simple. Otherwise the gate would not even be there, it would be an off-ramp with a speed limit of 65 mph.

I read the bible every day, and every day I find even more meaning in it than the one before. And, like I said, I'm far beyond the idea of it being a literal instruction.

I know you probably think I'm trying to prove that the bible isn't true, or maybe you don't. Either way, I know you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying: the bible is 100% true, and profitable for instruction, guaranteed, I bet my life on it, I recommend it for anyone who cares to join me. But the proof of that truth does not depend on things we can touch, or see, or use any of our physical senses to perceive. It's only proven within each of us, in our hearts, and it's something you always think you have, until the day you really have it. Then you're not afraid to say, I know. I know because I trust in the Word (Jesus, that is.) Then all things will be revealed which are hidden. That's what pentecost truly means. The second baptism with the holy spirit. It doesn't just automatically happen when someone says they're a christian or that they believe. It doesn't matter what your mouth says, because G-d knows what's in the heart of every soul. A water baptism is just when you knock upon that door. When the door is opened, then you've reached the second baptism. The first is something you chose to do, to give yourself in His name. The second is bestowed on you when you are ready to receive it.

I know these things. Only you can prove them, but just to yourself, and not in the way you think.

 

i would completely agree with you on that.


i think its just a given in reality that when one force exists there is an equal and opposite force. just like every action has an equal and opposite reaction.



i strongly believe in that.i don't think one factor can exist without the other.



hmm..i don't know ... maybe we all secretly revel in the oppertunity to defend our faith or lack there of. who knows. all i know is when mine is questioned, it is strengthened beyond belief and i hope that counts for all those who believe.

 

If you are still at the stage where only the possibility for proof exists, and not yet the actual proof, then there is no way you can then prove the opposite exists--yet. You can't prove the opposite of a possibility! There's got to be a control or some kind of benchmark, whatever, that is clearly defined and confirmed before you can prove something in relation to it.

You can't prove the bible isn't true until you prove it is true. Since the object of it's lesson is not material (like how to learn how to shear sheep) but spiritual (as in: 101 sure fire ways to spend your eternal vacation with G-d!) there is no way to prove it on a material level--which is all we basically regard as 'proof', things which we can perceive of. The proof of things unseen is proof that is unseen, aka 'faith.'

You either believe in Jesus or you don't. You can't prove to someone else He is for real by proving there once was a big ship built and now it's rotting on a mountaintop in Turkey.

As well, this is not about 'defending' one's faith, as you were saying.

You shouldn't have to defend your faith. It's yours, you believe in it, and who cares if someone else thinks you're putting your eggs in a broken basket? If your faith is true, you won't care if they think your basket's broken, because you know it isn't. If they don't want a basket like yours, does that mean you're going to give up yours, which you already trust and believe will hold your eggs safely? That would be an unwise thing to do, right?

If someone thinks your faith is idiotic, oh well. I'm not saying be ugly or a bad example of someone who believes in Jesus, just don't let it alter your course. By demonstrating what you believe from the stance of defending it, how many people do you think will decide they'd get something out of it, too. Defending something wears a person out. That's not an ideal factor when looking for peace of mind.

That's why I really dislike encountering the word 'apologetic' when it comes to someone's beliefs, call it religion or whatever. Why should anyone have to apologize for what they believe in to someone who believes differently? That is ludicrous. It does more damage than what the person 'apologizing' thinks they're correcting.

Faith is for affirmation, not for defending.

 

if you prove something true and then disprove it it was never true



until god can be proven the possibilities for him being truth and fallacy are both at equal standings. the only thing that seperates us is faith.



until god is proven to exist, the possibilities have not yet been fulfilled but could go either way.



to describe loyalty to ones faith as a lack of true faith is indignant and neither you nor i have a say on what true faith is. i seek to defend god as i would seek to defend my own mother or father. with the same comapssion and love as i could express for their name i would express it for gods name.


and i find it strange that you equate defending faith with being as mob hysteric as abandoning it because someone else does it. loyalty tomy faith evokes my defence. to abandon my faith would serve to show my lack of "true"faith. you defend your opinions on this site when people misunderstand you or if people attack you. does this then then not mean that if your opinion were true you would not defend it to the very people who misunderstand you?


what should be is a dream. a fleeting one at that as each moment passes. i accept gracefully people who insult god and forgive them. i forgive them and embrace them. i accept their right to do that.

if your loyalty lies in silence then that is your peace of mind.

if my loyalty lies in my willingness to defend then that is my peace of mind.


peace of mind comes from an affirmation from within. this affirmation comes from many internal and external factors which both may bear a spiritual influence also.


defending my faith does not wear me out but makes me at peace with myself.


if that is my way then there is no other way for me to go. there is no should about it nor wrong in what i am doing as a loyalty.







i agree no-one shoudl have to apologise for their faith. and no-one shoudl expect someone to apologise for it.

 

That's what I mean, you can't prove something is a lie, only that it is truth.

They are not at equal standings for everyone. This whole area is only qualified as subjective, not objective.

This will never happen in the sense that you seem to be saying. If a person has no faith that G-d exists, then they probably won't be in a state of consciousness long enough after finding out He does to discuss the discovery with any other souls. So it boils down to, it doesn't matter, either you believe and there is no need of proof, or you don't and there is still no need in proof because it will be of no value to you.

The kind of loyalty that brings one to defend something is not the same as faith in the perfection of G-d. Faith surpasses loyalty.

You may not feel you have a say in what true faith is, but don't speak for me, because I know what it is. The only reason I say this is because I haven't always, and when you cross a threshold, you know the differences that exist on both sides of that doorway.

Although it may seem otherwise, I don't usually debate my opinions. If I feel a need to state an opinion, I say that it is such, and if someone doesn't agree, that's okay. An opinion is not something that needs to be argued, as it is an individual possession. Opinion also has no role in what faith truly is. Your opinion of something about G-d is also not the same as believing or trusting. It doesn't matter about anything beyond what you base your trust on, such as the unconditional love, or mercy, or compassion, whatever, that you receive from the object your place your trust in. You know why you have faith, and the rest is details.

Why do you need to forgive someone for insulting G-d? Are they insulting you? Do you think it offends G-d? That's a personal issue.

I see it as coming from one source, easily defined with one word.

of course it can't be wrong, but will it serve the purpose you need it to?







i agree no-one shoudl have to apologise for their faith. and no-one shoudl expect someone to apologise for it.[/QUOTE]

 

i do not think you above anyone else,know what true faith is in accordance with others. only what you perceive it to be within yourself.

in fact i don't think anyone knows what true faith is in accordance with others.


its personal.


on that belief i din't see it as fair that you had said mine was not. i did not mean that you did not know what true faith was within you. i apologise if it seemed that way to you.that was not my intent as i know faith is a very personal thing indeed.



i have faith in the perfection of god to the best of my ability.i have only recently found my faith in god and am still learning.
but i will still defend the word of god if someone uses it for hate because that is not what god is to me.




so to your standing it shall be seen.



to me fallacy can still be proven in reality. but self can see fit not to be akin with such overviews. but that is choice again. a choice i am not akin with but graciously accept if even my words seem coarse.


when i say forgive the insult of god i mean forgive their ignorance towards those who follow him. in otherwards if they show anger and treat those of the faith like morons, and speak ill of them i would still forgive them for that because it is their belief.


i think my acts of loyalty do serve my purpose well. it may not seem it to you but i could not possibly even try and go into the depth of it in my head and try and relay it in words [im not one for them at the best of times, even when the most pellucid are all that are required] they give me peace of mind but it only serves as one factor. there are a lot of other more personal things as regards my faith in god that help me achieve this.



it would appear otherwise but it is many a time that the giving of opinion can be misconstrieud as an attempt at debate. i'm sure you have witnessed this yourself. its a fine line between both. but i think most can see the difference. and most do not attempt to enter into debate on matters such as these as most accept belief as belief.

 

In light of what you are saying, I think we might be using the word 'faith' differently in regard to its definition. I'm using it as a 'unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence', and it seems you are using it as meaning 'a religion or a system of religious beliefs.'

If that's the case, then you are absolutely correct, and I wouldn't ever presume to tell anyone what or how to believe.

That's all you can do, as long as you trust Him, then it's all good. The rest will be given to you when it is time.

Not truly to anyone, really, and in this regard loyalty is excellent. But not to be confused with being the same as faith. Being loyal to and having faith in someone or something are two different things altogether.
Loyalty is defending or supporting. Faith is believing. Nothing can substitute for faith.

What is reality? How do we know that what we call 'reality' is nothing but a fallacy?

But, still, it is not yours to forgive, if they're not speaking about you. We can't forgive an insult that is not ours, and although we are all a part of God and He is in each of us, if you look at it that way, it can possibly cause some negative energy within you, you never know.

I'm sure that is all very effective and appropriate, I don't mean to infer that it is not. But our choice of words is very important when we want to express what we think with accuracy. It can avoid many troubles down the road if you're sure the words you use project the meaning that you intend.

 

the first understanding of faith was different.




as regards faith and loyalty i know faith isn't loyalty. my faith drives me to act within that loyalty but they are not akin in definition both literally or internally.




i don't go in much for the whole philosophicak what is reality malarky to be honest so i wouldn't ebter into it only to think that how do we know reality is nothing but truth?endless. how do we knoew that reality isn't either or?


it is mine to forgive because i am a christian and i was incorporating myself into that statement a it was meant as a whole by which i said "to those who follow him". if you insult one you insult all in my books. call a christian a bastard you're calling me one because i am a christian and all shouldn't be lumped into a derogatory category.




as regards words portraying accuracy...i agree we should try and be as accurate as possible when using words.then again, even the most accurate of words will never be interpreted with full correctness because words know no bounds. and to each his own unfortunately.even in speech words are poetic justice and all can seek "god's breath in common statement" to borrow a phrase. all interpret differently but we can always go back and highlight what we mean if it becomes an issue. that's the beauty of language. it always means something else to someone.

lmao.


unfortunately for most

 

Well, I really don't, either, it's too vague and circular for me. I guess it sounded like philosophy but I meant it more as a pin-pointer. Do you know what I mean?

I do believe that reality is nothing but truth. That is an excellent way to put it, perfect. If that is the case, then the world we live in is not as real as we think, because there's not enough truth in it to justify is as being reality--comfort is often mistaken for truth, IMO

Some well-known statements of philosophy, that have been repeated until cliche, however, can sometimes have a startling ring of truth if we set aside the disguise of triteness and really hear the words. For example, "I think, therefore I am." From my point of view, everything was created by the manifestation of a perfect word which arose from a perfect thought. In the same way, each of us has a mind which is a small part of the mind that had the perfect thought. What we are is memory and thoughts, and so thinking is being.

Anyway that's off topic.

 

nah i see where you're coming from on that.


its a nice beliefe that the world is truth. in fact it would probably make a perfect world if we could act truthfully to the most complete of ways.


not so offtopic at all. religion in itself is a form of philosophy.



its nice to hear your viewpoint on the matter of truth and being.