Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
Take the movie the matrix. Is that story literally real and true? No, it's just a movie. Yet despite this fact, the movie/story itself still speaks truth on many levels. That the movie is not literally real and true does not have any effect towards what it is expressing, and so if even if the movie wasn't there - those things would have still been true etc.

People thought 911 was a movie, when they first saw it on TV, because they couldn’t believe such a terrible thing could happen for real. Maybe in 2000 years from now, people will be debating whether or not 911 was real or a movie, done by advanced computer graphics.

Originally posted by badmedia
So to me, debating about if Jesus is real or not is on the same level of arguing over if the Matrix is real or not. It's all besides the point.

Yes the ideas expressed in the bible and the movie the “Matrix”, are all real concepts, but they also have a source, from which they came from.

Originally posted by badmedia
But you are not asking me to believe it. Belief is easy. What you are asking me to do is profess it as fact as if I had witnessed it, and I am not a liar and I will not do it. If I did that, then I would be bearing false witness to you and to everyone else. I will always point to the father instead.

If the father wants me to profess such is fact, then I would have witnessed and would know such. If I am deemed as false because of the bible or whatever, then so be it. I will not lie about my experience or understanding, and I will not mold to anyone's ideas on what things should be for their comfort or benefit.

I understand that you don't realize it, but you are asking me to lie and bear false witness here. I won't do it.

I’m not telling you, are trying to force you to believe anything, I’m simply trying to get you to consider it. What you choose to believe or not believe is entirely up to you and you alone.

I can say “I believe Jesus exists” because I have faith that it is true, so I would not be bearing false witness, when I say it.

You on the other hand, don’t believe or are not sure, if Jesus existed or not, so for you to say “Jesus exists” would be bearing false witness.


Having faith is quite a hard thing for most people to understand.

If, for example, someone believed (partly through some evidence) that there was life on mars (but it couldn’t be proven either way) and they state that they believe “Yes there is life on mars”, they believe so, partly by evidence and faith. Even if, for arguments sake, there were no life on mars, it wouldn’t matter. The person given his testimony still believes, with all his heart, soul and mind, that it is true. That’s what faith is all about.


I mean, how do you think people come to a belief in God/Father in the first place, not everyone has had an experience like yourself (although some have had experiences, that have helped them to believe). They have to do it, to a certain degree, by faith, that’s why it’s talked about so much in the bible.


*On a side note* I like how you try to get atheists and agnostics to believe there could be a God. The way you approach it etc…I believe that you are trying to help people to see the truth and that can only come from the Father IMO.

Originally posted by Joecroft
John 15:1-2

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

I’m going to assume you agree, that the above verse is Jesus speaking.

Originally posted by badmedia
No, that is not a being named Jesus speaking. That is the spirit/father.

How can the spirit/Father be saying “I am the true vine, and my Father is…etc etc”?

That doesn’t make any sense…

Originally posted by badmedia
I can attest that all that Jesus speaks of outside the flesh is real and true. I do not have a problem with it. In that manner, I can honestly say that I know "Jesus" very well. But when you are talking about in the flesh - that I do not know. I do not know a being named Jesus. And I do not have a problem saying that such became flesh as this is what all people are.

Do you see the difference? If you want to look at Jesus in terms of the father and spirit, then I know Jesus well. If you want to talk about a flesh Jesus, then I do not know. And I have no exceptions to this being true, none at all. But I can't say it because I don't know.

Yes but for me it’s not just about Jesus in the flesh, it’s about his pre-existence in the spiritual as well. You are right about the soul aspect of people… we all have our own spirit. Jesus is saying he is the vine, so he has a pre-existence spirit as well before he came to dwell in the body of a man, that people called Jesus but he is not like us because we are the branches.

Originally posted by badmedia
It was the father I seen, I knew it immediately and without question. I didn't even ask, and didn't need to be told. Because upon the arrival the understanding of father and son relationship and all that came with it. I could question the vision in terms of being real, but the understanding itself i couldn't(I thought I was going crazy once I first reflected upon the experience).

But yes, it is impossible to be all the father, and is nothing more than a representation of it. If you want to call that Jesus, then that is also fine. Yet, if it is Jesus and it is so important to believe the flesh part as for me to bear false witness to the effect - then wouldn't I have been told such?

Ok I’m not saying this is true or that you have to believe it and just going to throw this out there as a possibility. I was thinking about this last night, just after my last post.

Now, I know you don’t believe this but according to the bible, all things were created through Jesus and the Father, so in a way Jesus is also our Father but he is not the heavenly Father/God. Jesus and the Father are so a like, it is hard to tell them apart because they both represent the same things. So I think it is possible that when you had your experience, you may not have been aware of Jesus because they are so similar. IMO it is more likely that you saw Jesus but it is possible that the Father appeared to you directly, which has happened to various men in the Old Testament but I really don’t know for sure either way.



- JC


[edit on 14-2-2010 by Joecroft]

reply to post by jmdewey60



Hey jmdewey, sorry I didn’t see your reply, I was too wrapped up in my conversation with badmedia.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I found something I am going to quote, from New Currents Through John page 46, that I think does a good job of pointing out what is important to see in this verse.

My Greek translation and exegesis skills are not that great…I’m not much of a biblical scholar.

The translation breakdown is quite interesting but I would have to do a bit more research to give a decent reply. I have a Christian friend who reads the bible in Greek everyday and he is something of an expert at it, unlike myself.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
We can look at the word, eleutheros, which is in the New Testament, translated as, freeman. If we take the word, minus the eleu-, we get theros, a male god of harvest.

This is interesting and I was kind of putting the words together to form…

“We shall be coming to harvest the freeman!”

Just a thought

Originally posted by Joecroft
I’m not telling you, are trying to force you to believe anything, I’m simply trying to get you to consider it. What you choose to believe or not believe is entirely up to you and you alone.

I can say “I believe Jesus exists” because I have faith that it is true, so I would not be bearing false witness, when I say it.

You on the other hand, don’t believe or are not sure, if Jesus existed or not, so for you to say “Jesus exists” would be bearing false witness.

Having faith is quite a hard thing for most people to understand.

But faith and blind faith are 2 different things. I have faith that before the end, the truth will return to men, that people will follow the way and on and on. I base this faith on the world around me, as well as my own experiences of being lifted up. I didn't need to believe anything when I found the father, in fact it was the lack of belief that enabled it.

Also, there is a difference in bearing false witness and not knowing it, and doing it while knowing it.

Plus, the father specifically told me not to get caught up in such things.

If, for example, someone believed (partly through some evidence) that there was life on mars (but it couldn’t be proven either way) and they state that they believe “Yes there is life on mars”, they believe so, partly by evidence and faith. Even if, for arguments sake, there were no life on mars, it wouldn’t matter. The person given his testimony still believes, with all his heart, soul and mind, that it is true. That’s what faith is all about.

And such is exactly how errors never get fixed. Belief is merely a replacement for understanding.

I mean, how do you think people come to a belief in God/Father in the first place, not everyone has had an experience like yourself (although some have had experiences, that have helped them to believe). They have to do it, to a certain degree, by faith, that’s why it’s talked about so much in the bible.

But can we first define if belief in god/father is good and right? Because IMO it is belief that will blind people from the father. Did the people who Jesus dealt with not believe in god? And yet, look at how far away from him they actually were. Jesus didn't believe in god, he knew.

I think people should settle for nothing less than what I experienced. Everyone has to experience it, which is like Jesus said with being born of spirit - it has to happen. Belief doesn't make that happen.

When you speak of belief in god, you are only looking at it in the best light. Yet, belief in god in many cases causes people to do the opposite of the way, and lead a path of death and destruction. Now, if belief in god always lead to that which is good, then I would be a little more in agreement, but I have yet to see much good come from belief in god.

And as I have said before, to believe in Jesus is not the same thing as believing in a person/idol etc. To believe is to walk the path. If belief always lead to such, then belief would be great. It's just not the case.

When I found the father I had no beliefs at all. I was completely agnostic and open, and I only searched for the truth, and I was honest in my search. So, as I had no beliefs when I had my experience, then it is hard for me to endorse others taking up beliefs. Because I did the opposite and found the father, yet I see plenty of those who believe who don't.

If we are based on belief, then we will reject anything that goes against our beliefs. As such, as long as we have beliefs we will not be seeking the truth in that area. If you have beliefs, then you only seek to validate and reinforce those beliefs instead of looking for the truth.

*On a side note* I like how you try to get atheists and agnostics to believe there could be a God. The way you approach it etc…I believe that you are trying to help people to see the truth and that can only come from the Father IMO.

Thanks, I mostly just try and open the possibility to people. I was an atheist, and I came to realize how dumb I was. How I treated reality as if anything that wasn't part of my reality was by default false etc. I truly believe and have faith that when the truth comes to people, they will accept it and change. I consider it my own personal hell as these people reply to me in the same manner in which I once replied. I am truly reaping what I sowed.

Just a matter of time, no different than it was for me. Nobody would purposely choose to be wrong or to be deceived.

How can the spirit/Father be saying “I am the true vine, and my Father is…etc etc”?

That doesn’t make any sense…

The father is within all things, and is in the end the only observer/thing that is real. When you are talking about Jesus, the vine, the spirit and such you are talking about that which is lesser. The father is that which is greater, the others the lesser. But they are still all the father and of the father.

I kind of hate this little quote, but in terms of the father it is true. The sum is greater than the whole of it's parts. I hate the quote only because people often say it and quote it, yet they do not really have the entire sum, just a bigger part and so it can be used to deceive. But in terms of the father, such is true because in that manner you are talking all parts.

So, is the engine not part of the car and thus also the car? Again, John 14:20. If such made no sense, then neither would John 14:20.

If you were to take away all the physical and make the spirit that which is visible, then you would see what looks like a vine/tree. And so you have all the connections etc. But if you are too go into that which is greater, then you would be in the father. And in the father it means that not only do you see that, but you are/experience each and every one of those. See, right back to why you can't see the father completely, because in doing so it means you would see every single experience. This we can not even really imagine in itself.

So there are levels/layers here. And it is hard to talk about because it depends on what level you are looking at. Those 2 things do not exist in the same level exactly, but the lower level is within the higher level.

Yes but for me it’s not just about Jesus in the flesh, it’s about his pre-existence in the spiritual as well. You are right about the soul aspect of people… we all have our own spirit. Jesus is saying he is the vine, so he has a pre-existence spirit as well before he came to dwell in the body of a man, that people called Jesus but he is not like us because we are the branches.

Well, I think as long as the deeper things are understood and the way is kept, then that is all that matters.

Ok I’m not saying this is true or that you have to believe it and just going to throw this out there as a possibility. I was thinking about this last night, just after my last post.

Now, I know you don’t believe this but according to the bible, all things were created through Jesus and the Father, so in a way Jesus is also our Father but he is not the heavenly Father/God. Jesus and the Father are so a like, it is hard to tell them apart because they both represent the same things. So I think it is possible that when you had your experience, you may not have been aware of Jesus because they are so similar. IMO it is more likely that you saw Jesus but it is possible that the Father appeared to you directly, which has happened to various men in the Old Testament but I really don’t know for sure either way.

But you are also all that Jesus says. This is a prime reason why I don't care for the narrowing down of things. Jesus = you. You are no different than Jesus, except that his understanding is much greater. But all the things he says is also true of you, and when you become one who operates based on spirit rather than flesh and with that understanding, then you will also do as he does. As well, when you understand and act from spirit rather than flesh, the commandments and other things also make perfect sense.

Yet, when people make that "Jesus only", then they are in fact denying these things within themselves. Jesus is turned from an example to follow, to that which people believe is impossible to follow and so on.

Does it bring people closer to god? From what I can see, the answer is sadly no. If it did, then with so many Christians in the world we would be very close to a society that follows the way. Yet, the world is much much different than that.

If you knock then it will be answered. If you think you've knocked and didn't get an answer - then you didn't knock on the right door. I do not for a second believe that I am somehow special in what I've experienced and am most sure it is available to all those who truly seek it. But are people seeking to fulfill their existing beliefs, or for the truth?

Hi JoeCroft

Just a couple of quick questions. What VERSION of the Koine ('common') Greek NT does your friend read?

Presumably your friend's Koine Greek text has what is known as a CRITICUS APPARATUS at the bottom showing the 20,000 variant readings in the MSS.

He does know, doesn't he, that the socalled New Testament comprises 5446 manscripts, no two exactly alike ?

Is your friend able to re-translate the mangled Greek of his NT back into Galilean Aramaic idomatic phrases, at least, for the words placed into the mouth of the 'Greek speaking Iesous' in the canonical 4 post Nicene council approved Gospels? Does he read the various versions of the LXX (Septuaginta, i.e. the Old Testament and Apocrypha in Greek, translated around 200 - 150 BCE?) including Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion's versions (you guessed it, no two alike there either)?

Is he able to re-translated the LXX etc. BACK into their unpointed (un-vowelled) Paleo-Hebrew and (like parts of Ezra and Daniel) Aramaic Vorlagen (Hebrew/aramaic texual source 'underlay' MSS)?

Does he have any idea how many variants of these Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic 'Old Testament' texts exist in the fragments found amongst the oldest Dead Sea Scroll material in Caves 1-11 (not the later junk found in Wadi Muraba'at etc.)?

Does he read any of the older Greek MSS of the pseudipigrapha, like the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs or the Testament of Moses (Jubiless) or the Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch, or the Assumption of Moses, all quoted in the NT in places 'as proof texts' i.e. as holy scripture in e.g. Jude 1:14 and other places like the 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('according to John' whoever he was, chapter 2 with the woman at the well pericope e.g. 'The Salvation of Israel shall come from the Judaens' which is quoted as Scripture by words placed into the mouth of the Greek Speaking Iesous ('for Salvation is from...') with a text originally taken from the Scroll of the Book of the Testament of Naphtali chapter 8;13 found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 - yet deliberatey MIS-quoted in the 4th gospel's Greek to leave out any reference to Yisro'el, the so-called northern kingdom?)

And, most importantly, if he is aware of all this messy and garbled textual background of the texts he reads in Greek, does he follow one version over another, and if so, why, exactly?

I would love to hear what he would have to say about any or all of this...





[edit on 16-2-2010 by Sigismundus]

reply to post by Sigismundus


Sigs, hello friend.
Although I respect your vast knowledge concerning the Bible specifically the dead sea scrolls, one question continuously comes to mind.Never mind the textual MSS Greek (CRITICUS APPARATUS)or the 5446 different manuscript versions,Paleo-Hebrew,Aramaic Vorlagen or all that mumbo jumbo what have you. The 100,000,000 question is, Do you understand the overall message the bible portrays? According to what I have read from you you don't. I would love to here what you have to say about the the real truth concerning the Bible.

Hi Oliveoil--

The issue is if you do not have a coherent set of MSS (i.e. a single 'bible' between say two covers etc.) you do not have a coherent text upon which to base coherent religious dogma.

If the 'bible' were in 'one piece' (which it is not) and were penned by the same writer with the same style and Weltanschauung (i.e. world-view) and spoke in terms of universal truths (not master races, or 'chosen people') and did not espose genocide or extermination of non-Jewish races, or if the Greek New Testament was not written down in Koine Greek differently at different times in different places (we have 5446 Greek MSS, no two are alike) and if we had documents that were actually penned by the living disciples of R. Yeoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir in Galilean Aramaic (which we do not: the original disciples were Galilean fishermen for the most part, and most were probably illiterate) and if we had any writings in Galilean Aramaic from R. Yehoshua bar Yosef himself (which we do not: any sand scribblings that might have been written by him have long washed away by the tide) at least according to the infamous Adultery Woman Story where some scribbling/writing was involved (a story which is ONLY found in two few stray Greek MSS anyway--and in different places in the text as well !) then I think we'd all be singing a different tune.

But unfortunately for believers who want to build their Weltanschauung on something more than sand, most of the Biblical material that scholars have to contend with today are in fact late foreign language texts (e.g. Koine Greek for the NT) which have little or nothing to do with the original ORAL Aramaic teachings of the earliest Messianic Nazorean synagogues in Roman-Occupied 1st century Palestine - original oral teaching that is basically lost in the sands of time.

Even the prophets of the 'old testament' were oral poetry at first and they rarely wrote anything down when the 'prophet' himself was still alive (Jeremiah had Barukiah scribble down a few of his oracles without vowells scribbled on potsherds or palm leaves, but that was the EXCEPTION not the rule---so apart from those few instances, 'written' prophecies date from the 2nd or 3rd generation after the prophet died, and they ONLY collected prophecies that came true (for the most part) discarding or ignoring all the other material originally spoken.

Ditto for the supposedly Ancient Torah of the Jews, which betray FIVE different writing styles and periods of thought (so much for Moses !), mostly written with an accent datable to the time of Ezra around 450 BCE using his 5 Scribes (all from different scribal schools and with different agendas) when he set about compiling and editing his post-Exilic (post 530 BCE) Book of the Law from ORAL material that had morphed out of its original shape over time and in different places where the traditions were committed to writing (hence the differences between the SamPent and the Vorlage to the LXX and the later protoMT, etc.)

To add insult to injury, Ezra completely introduced a whle new Aleph-Bet, removingt the (borrowed) Canaanite Phonecian 'horned letters' to the now familiar Square Aramaic Letters we read today in Hebrew textbooks, thereby completing the destruction of a great deal of material in the process.

Adding further to the woes of scholars (who have studied the Dead Sea Scroll Fragments for decades now), we know that the Jews did NOT start counting middle letters on a page of text until well into the 300s CE - and that after 100 CE, ONLY the proto-Masoretic consonantal text was authorised by the Babylonian Rebbes under Hillel II who burned all other copies he came across as 'defective' (if Hillel and his group of merry men knew about the Dead Sea Scroll Caves 1-11 (acting as veritable Time Capsules concealing and preserving text copies of the OT and Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha some as early s 350 BCE) he and his group of Masoretic Copy Happy Rabbis would have burned them too -- they only wanted ONE version to survive so they could claim that ONLY THEIR VERSION came from YHWH - all others were defective and 'did not defile the hands...'

So, in a nutshell, the more you know about the textual mess of both the old and the new Testaments (following the eventual disclosures of much of the Dead Sea Scroll material that was allowed to be leaked out by the Ecole Biblique to the masses) the less likely you are to be dogmatic about what was said or what was written and what was believed.

It is a very sad fact that 95% of all persons who style themselves 'jews' or 'christians' or 'muslims' have any idea of these basic facts, and as for me, I blame the church/synagoge/mosque leaders for keeping this vital information away from the common herd ('sheep') of believers who are led very very very easily by the nose, apparently--mainly by believing what they 'want to believe...'

reply to post by badmedia

Originally posted by badmedia
But faith and blind faith are 2 different things. I have faith that before the end, the truth will return to men, that people will follow the way and on and on. I base this faith on the world around me, as well as my own experiences of being lifted up. I didn't need to believe anything when I found the father, in fact it was the lack of belief that enabled it.

Blind faith is extremely rare and is something people only talk about when they don’t really understand faith, as if all faith is blind and therefore stupid and that’s why they think they can never achieve it.

Originally posted by badmedia
Also, there is a difference in bearing false witness and not knowing it, and doing it while knowing it.

Yes, I agree.

Originally posted by badmedia
And such is exactly how errors never get fixed. Belief is merely a replacement for understanding.

Yes, but belief is a starting point for most people, it’s like a stepping stone, that can lead to understanding.

Originally posted by badmedia
I think people should settle for nothing less than what I experienced. Everyone has to experience it, which is like Jesus said with being born of spirit - it has to happen. Belief doesn't make that happen.

People do experience the spirit of God, there called “born again Christians”

Your experience is unique, and was followed by you being led to the bible to find Jesus words, where you recognized the Father. Most people do it the other way around, this is why people need Jesus. The only way for most people to hear the Fathers voice, is through Jesus words in the bible.

Originally posted by badmedia
If we are based on belief, then we will reject anything that goes against our beliefs. As such, as long as we have beliefs we will not be seeking the truth in that area. If you have beliefs, then you only seek to validate and reinforce those beliefs instead of looking for the truth.

I kind of agree with you here, I think an initial belief in God/Father through faith is fine but people must also seek the Father and the born of the spirit experience. This is actually what Jesus talks about but yes when people believe all the dogma and doctrines that they are brought up with, just through faith, it can actually blind them from not only seeking the truth, but actually finding it. This is why I think those who believe in God/Father must still continue to seek.

Originally posted by Joecroft
How can the spirit/Father be saying “I am the true vine, and my Father is…etc etc”?

That doesn’t make any sense…

Originally posted by badmedia
So, is the engine not part of the car and thus also the car? Again, John 14:20. If such made no sense, then neither would John 14:20.

Yes and No

It’s part of the car but it’s not the car.

Do you think the engine stops being the engine, just because it is part of the car?

If the Car could speak and it said...
“I am the engine/vine and my Car/Father is the etc”, doesn’t make any sense. The Father/Car wouldn’t refer to itself, as “My Car/Father is etc”

If the Car/Father was speaking, it would say something like…
“I am the engine/vine (The first part would still be true of the Car/Father) and I am the Car/Father

I agree with what you are saying, the Father is greater and is in all things. Having said that though, a person or Jesus can keep their individual identity and at the same time, be a part of the Father. I guess the big question for you is, is Jesus just a normal man with the spirit of the Father speaking through him, or is he something greater than men but not greater than the Father.

Originally posted by badmedia

Yet, when people make that "Jesus only", then they are in fact denying these things within themselves. Jesus is turned from an example to follow, to that which people believe is impossible to follow and so on.

Jesus is a light that leads people to the Father. Jesus wants people to find and follow the will of the Father. Jesus tells us that everything he does is through the Father and that we will do even greater things than him.


- JC

reply to post by Sigismundus



Hi SigisMundus

I don’t have the answer to all those questions but I suppose I could ask my friend.

Just one quick question for you….

Do you believe that Jesus actually existed?


- JC

Originally posted by Sigismundus

The issue is if you do not have a coherent set of MSS (i.e. a single 'bible' between say two covers etc.) you do not have a coherent text upon which to base coherent religious dogma.

One thing you may have forgotten is that the bible was not written with the idea that there was to be a single set of coherent texts so maybe one day some 2000 years later people could base coherent religious dogma off of what they wrote down.(whoever that may have been)

If the 'bible' were in 'one piece' (which it is not) and were penned by the same writer with the same style and Weltanschauung (i.e. world-view) and spoke in terms of universal truths (not master races, or 'chosen people') and did not espose genocide or extermination of non-Jewish races, or if the Greek New Testament was not written down in Koine Greek differently at different times in different places (we have 5446 Greek MSS, no two are alike) and if we had documents that were actually penned by the living disciples of R. Yeoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir in Galilean Aramaic (which we do not: the original disciples were Galilean fishermen for the most part, and most were probably illiterate) and if we had any writings in Galilean Aramaic from R. Yehoshua bar Yosef himself (which we do not: any sand scribblings that might have been written by him have long washed away by the tide) at least according to the infamous Adultery Woman Story where some scribbling/writing was involved (a story which is ONLY found in two few stray Greek MSS anyway--and in different places in the text as well !) then I think we'd all be singing a different tune.

This is what makes the bible so mysterious. All these truths (some historical some not) from different people in different language and dialects and times and places all beating that same drum.

But unfortunately for believers who want to build their Weltanschauung on something more than sand, most of the Biblical material that scholars have to contend with today are in fact late foreign language texts (e.g. Koine Greek for the NT) which have little or nothing to do with the original ORAL Aramaic teachings of the earliest Messianic Nazorean synagogues in Roman-Occupied 1st century Palestine - original oral teaching that is basically lost in the sands of time.

How can oral teaching be lost.That's like saying he said, she said with out any proof. This makes no sense at all

Even the prophets of the 'old testament' were oral poetry at first and they rarely wrote anything down when the 'prophet' himself was still alive (Jeremiah had Barukiah scribble down a few of his oracles without vowells scribbled on potsherds or palm leaves, but that was the EXCEPTION not the rule---so apart from those few instances, 'written' prophecies date from the 2nd or 3rd generation after the prophet died, and they ONLY collected prophecies that came true (for the most part) discarding or ignoring all the other material originally spoken.

How do you know that that all other material originally spoken was discarded if it was not wrote down. Again this makes no sense.

Adding further to the woes of scholars (who have studied the Dead Sea Scroll Fragments for decades now), we know that the Jews did NOT start counting middle letters on a page of text until well into the 300s CE - and that after 100 CE, ONLY the proto-Masoretic consonantal text was authorised by the Babylonian Rebbes under Hillel II who burned all other copies he came across as 'defective' (if Hillel and his group of merry men knew about the Dead Sea Scroll Caves 1-11 (acting as veritable Time Capsules concealing and preserving text copies of the OT and Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha some as early s 350 BCE) he and his group of Masoretic Copy Happy Rabbis would have burned them too -- they only wanted ONE version to survive so they could claim that ONLY THEIR VERSION came from YHWH - all others were defective and 'did not defile the hands...'

Im sure that there were many, many who wanted to do the same. However, this does not convince me of anything.How many "COPIES" did he come across?

So, in a nutshell, the more you know about the textual mess of both the old and the new Testaments (following the eventual disclosures of much of the Dead Sea Scroll material that was allowed to be leaked out by the Ecole Biblique to the masses) the less likely you are to be dogmatic about what was said or what was written and what was believed.

Yes.however, with still little variance they ALL contain the same simple basic truths which religious dogma is based.

It is a very sad fact that 95% of all persons who style themselves 'jews' or 'christians' or 'muslims' have any idea of these basic facts, and as for me, I blame the church/synagoge/mosque leaders for keeping this vital information away from the common herd ('sheep') of believers who are led very very very easily by the nose, apparently--mainly by believing what they 'want to believe...'

I believe that this information is irrelevant and changes nothing. Most church dogma is based on sound theory and how it relates to what was written and or preserved orally.It matches up perfect and that's good enough for me.

please forgive for the slow response.My DSL is acting funny.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by oliveoil]

Hi Oliveoil—

You will have to step back away a little from the material for a moment so you can see what the evidence tells you (you seem a little lost by a lot of the discussion in my last).

The ‘bible’ was never meant to be read as a single book between two covers. It grew into its present shape(s) over time -much of the ‘written material’ first floated around (morphed within its initial oral stages) over the centuries BEFORE it was written down.

'Trying to reconstuct the initial ORAL stage from the later WRITTEN texts is like trying to reconstruct the PIG from a few old Sausages' --C.K. Barrett (1980)

So the ORIGINAL ORAL material is lost (you seemed confused by this ; you can imagine, can’t you, that ORAL material can change its shape and content a lot easier than written material that is more ‘fixed’ comparatively).

After the Destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in AD 70, there still was no single Old Testament between two covers, just separate scrolls, many of which had competing versions of the same scroll being coped side by side--so even “Jesus’ did not have a fixed bible, just various scrolls to quote from rather freely.

Later Christian groups added other books to their sacred collection that other groups discarded (e.g. for centuries the Ethiopic Churches in Abyssinia regarded The Testament of Moses (aka Jubilees) and The Scroll of the Words of Henoch and the Scroll of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs as ‘canonical’ i.e. ‘defiled the hands’, whereas the Greek churches in the east later discarded these books as ‘non canonical’. So you don’t have a unified conception of what books are to be included (take a look at the Roman Catholic Bible which includes books like Tobit and the Wisdom of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) & Judith and Maccabees, whereas Protestant churches omit these from their own 'bibles'. It was even more different looking in the earliest churches, where councils denounced each other for including or discarding books on lists that differed from their own.

Now here is an example taken from interior decorating. I’m sure you can visualize the situation:

Imagine 66 rolls of wallpaper, each one a different size and colour, all sitting on your kitchen floor. You selected these because they looked bright and cheery and resembled each other enough to suit your taste – they all contained trees and flowers and fruits/vines on them.

Then imagine say 84 more of the same type of wallpaper (but all different from one another, slightly in some cases, very different in others) sitting on the floor of your sitting room which look very similar to the ones in the kitchen, but when you lined them up, you discovered to your Shock and Awe that there were actually no two alike. Then you noticed that some of the kitchen rolls have dupes of some of the designs in the sitting room rolls – exactly to the millimetre in many places – too close for chance – the painter of some of the rolls in the kitchen knew some of the designs in the other room and literally copied the ones he evidently liked in his later ones—or one of his painter students did it.

Now imagine the house next door with the same kinds of wallpaper rolls in their kitchen and a whole bunch of other wall paper rolls also in their sitting room)

However their kitchen had 86 rolls on the floor (not 66) and some of their 86 look a lot like the ones next door – some are nearly exact copies. But 40 or so are different than yours, but in the same general style (sort of). If you look closely you will see that some of yours are a lot bigger, some are darker with different colours, some have mixed patterns of 3 or more of YOUR wallpaper designs in one pattern, and some of your neighbour’s rolls have been ‘painted over’ to make new designs. Ditto for the rolls in their sitting room next door. Instead of the same 80 rolls in your sitting room, the one next door has 124 rolls, of which 29 are nearly exact to the ones in your sitting room.

And 21 others are close in and texture & thickness of paper, but held a lot of different designs throughout (some added cherubs, others added shepherds), and 14 are VERY close, but with differences like all the cherries on one of them have been switched to larger apples by overpainting. 30 of your neighbour’s sitting room rolls are the same design as yours, but smaller & another 30 of your neighbours are so different as to be from another manufacturer altogether – a much later style. But you can scrape away the over-painting and find the original cherries (mostly) intact. But then on the same roll there was a new design which was a slavish imitation of the original roll (someone without much skill added some additional wall paper to one of the rolls, but it is cheaply done, and a child can see the difference).

An interior decorator comes over and says, ‘You know, most of these rolls have green-leaves in their design. Only 4 of yours in the kitchen have no leaves (just stems) but most of the ones next door have green leaves too…some are fig leaves and some are apple leaves, but there is a tree design to most of these rolls. Yours are mostly apple and pear leaves I think.

Did you buy these from your next door neighbor? And you tell him, no, we both went down to the 1-day sale at Standard Walls LLP yesterday and we bought up everything on sale. '

'The shopkeeper told me that they mostly came from the same Belgian manufacturer from the 1920s – he had been hired to decorate greenhouses in Belgium, which I suppose accounts for all the foliage on most of them. Do you think anyone would notice that the wall paper does not all match?’

The interior decorator then tells the lady, ‘Look, we can put up all the paper that looks similar on the same walls next to each other, and the ones that don’t we’ll use in another room, and we’ll try to match similar papers for that room too so people don’t really notice. But an expert will of course. Why don’t you put in some really really DIM lighting & cover the walls with prints - I don’t think people will think to actually look closely at the papers.’

This is the basic idea with the ‘bible’ which is not one Design (or worldview) but many individual books with individual theologies : in the Old Testament collection that morphed opver time (which was still not settled when R. Yehoshua bar Yosef was stil alive – it did not settle untl after Jamnia (Javneh) after AD 90 following the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Hi Sigs,

I totally understand what you are saying (nice analogy, although I prefer more of an eclectic style) Which is exactly my point. Its all wallpaper right?
What I really want to know is that (if you dont mind me asking) is with all that knowledge you have acquired, are you more likely to believe or disbelieve what these old texts are saying (never mind the FACT they do not match up)






[edit on 17-2-2010 by oliveoil]

Hi again, Oliveoil—

Arguments over the opinions of the Rebbes of ‘what books actually defile the hands; and all the concomitant textual transmission errors and deliberate scribal falsifications are one thing (read what Jeremiah is purported to have said in his own day around 550 BCE – ‘behold the lying pen of the copyists !!’) but the actual CONTENT of the Scrolls that we actually still have (in the late-morphed condition we have them today – i.e. after centuries of heavy-handed editing and redacting over time in different places by different groups with different agendas, incidentally) in terms of all the DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES being EXPRESSED in this hotchpotch collection is even more appalling.

We have more than just ‘contradictions’ of fact etc. but more disturbing to persons seeking anything like a UNIFIED WORLD VIEW, contrary opinions both in the OT and in the canonical NT.

In the socalled canonical OT, we have the greatest divergence of thought expressed when comparing the PRE-EXILIC writings (BCE 722 to BCE 580) with POST EXILIC Writings (BCE 530-BCE 165) referring to the Babylonian Exile Period (BCE 587-530) where scribes and priests and anyone working in metal (i.e. ‘alchemists’) were shipped off to Babylon, since this was the class of persons who were able to ‘organise a rebellion’ (i.e. affect public opinion and make weapons &tc.)

Of the 24 Priestly families that were forced into Exile in Babylon, only 4 families came back to Palestine to rebuild the Temple – these 4 families were the most vicious /violent /zealous Yahwistic hard heads who were eventually responsible for shaping the OT into what it became – a Yahwistic ‘Yahweh ONLY’ weltanschauung – writings or traditions about other local gods or non Yahweh-priesthoods (e.g. the Baalites) were burned or ‘adapted’ like Psalm 29 was – into Yahwistic hymns.

Take e.g. such PRE-EXILIC examples as proto-Isaiah (i.e.chapters 1-39 since chapters 40 to were written much later by completely different writers using different vocabulary , syntax and writing style as well as world-view), or Amos chapters 1-8 (some of the oldest paleoHebrew in the scriptures) and say Job chapters 3 to 43 (also some very old Elamite Hebew) – these early writings ascribe to YHWH (or in Job chapters 3-43, the god ‘ELOAH’) both GOOD and EVIL;

NO figure of Satan was introduced until the Persian Period (Persia invaded Palestine in 531 BCE and occupied Israel for 200 years introducing ideas of Zoroastrianism which involved DUALISM and the idea of a Satan Figure – for example the Persian Zorastrian influenced 1st two chapters of Job (written in proto Mishnaic Hebrew with the Satan Figure fully formed, in a late stule c. 180 BCE):

Dualism also introduced Angles, and Daemons and LIGHT/DARK, SIN/RIGHTEOUSNESS, OLD/NEW, UPPER/LOWER, DEATH/LIFE (dualism means comparison of opposites) with the idea the YHWH was only directly responsible for good (with intermediaries to do his dirty work); read 1-2 Chronicles (post Exilic) or the book of the prophet Daniel (written in late Hebrew AND Macabbean Aramaic c. 160 BCE) and Zechariah chapters 9-12 &tc.

Comparing 1-2 Samuel/1-2 Kings with the later 1-2 Chronicles as they each tell the same stories, you can see the introduction OF NEW FOREIGN ZOROASTRIAN-PERSIAN ideas, as well as a lot of spin on the part of the Chronicler who left a lot of the nasties e.g. about David out off his story altogether

(e.g. the homosexual language used in the 1 Samuel ‘relationship’ with Jonathan and also for example, the Paean for Jonathan in 2 Samuel chapter 1 “Jonathan, my brother, my love for you was full of Mystery to me, far-surpassing that of any woman !”) – all this is left out by the Chronicler---deliberately.

This is just ONE of several hundred DELIBERATE Political and religious content changes to the account made to the traditions by the hatchet of the postEXILIC writer of Chronicles. You would have to take the time to read 'closely' e.g. the two accounts of the CENSUS of David – the pre Exilic version in 2 Samuel states and YHWH was the one who caused David to run the census’, whereas the parallel in Chronicles says ‘and Satan entered into David to run the census’ etc.

In order to see these vast theological differences in world-view, you would have to take all the PRE-EXILIC passages and highlight them in say YELLOW and take all the POST-EXILIC passages (and editorial changes to the pre-Exilic material that was ‘added’ to the older material) in say GREEN. If you read the Yellow material you will get one set of theologies (pre Persian invasion without the Zoroastrian influence) and if you then read only the Green material (e.g. the prose intro to Job chapters 1,2) you will get a totally different set of theologies that are MUCH different.

You can see the TRANSITION phase of the change in pre to post exilic theology in the EXILIC Book of the Scroll of the Prophet Hezekiel :chapter 18:2 e.g. (What do you mean by saying the proverb: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge’ i.e. earlier generations stain later generations theology (favoured in the preExilic period) which later became ‘every man pays for his own sin’ after the Exile =Hezekiel 18:4 Behold, says YHWH everything that breathes is Mine as the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is mine: and that soul that sins, the same one will die.’

There are hundreds of theological changes throughout the OT (since the material covers a long period, nearly 600 years, through a lot of political & religious turmoil in Palestine) but you have to know what passages are PRE-Exilic and which ones are EXILIC or POST-EXILIC in order to spot these differences.

And these are just a few in the OLD Testament: there are also many theolgical differences in the NT as well (comparing the theologies in the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of 'James' which are Nazorean Salvation by Works writings with the Epistles of Paul with his 'salvation by Faith' ideas that stand in complete contrast, &tc.

No Rabbi, no Minister, No Priest and No Mullah will EVER show you these theological and re-editing differences in the Hebrew Scriptures– they do not want you to know they exist. They only want YOUR hard earned money in THEIR offering plates.

But only scholars who take the time and trouble to examine the language with a microscope see these kinds of things.

Is this information REALLY all new to you?

reply to post by Sigismundus


Of course all this information is new to me and probably everyone else. However, I could really care less as to the little idiosyncrasies such as who was homosexual or political issues(we are all human) or what have you. My main concern is with the message as a whole.This message shines bright no matter what or who or when regardless of the correct text and its interpretation. And you still have not answered my question. If you feel uncomfortable answering that's fine, However, I would like to know. Something sparked your interest a long time ago, and that same spark im afraid you have lost.No offense but I do not want to end up there. Not because its a bad place. I was once told the more you know the less you believe, and That truth is stranger than fiction.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by oliveoil]

[edit on 17-2-2010 by oliveoil]

Hi Oliveoil -

I guess this whole thing for you will be what is known as a Growth Experience, sort of like (remember?) when you were 7 years old and found out there was no Santa Claus. Some children never trust adults after that, others move on with their lives, others were never told the lies to them in the first place.

It's very very sad at first to realise that 'you've been lied-to' but eventually you will have to face the facts, and that will be the 'first step' on your journey forward 'into the light' and away from the superstitious fear-based dogma of organised religions who keep their flocks panic stricken and 'afraid' to 'think for themselves' about anything pertaining to what manure have been fed.

It's not exactly the same kind of thing as finding out about Santa or the Easter Bunny, but it is the kind of emotional shock to some people (who think they have a relationship with a god all figured out, nice and neat.. but it IS along some of the same lines.

Organised religion is 'organised' around money. In the US this is TAX FREE money which is a LOT of money. And Money is POWER--and people WITH A LOT OF MONEY will do ANYTHING to preseve the power that their money brings.

Hence the Lying Tongue of the TeleVangelists. (A fitting punishment for these cretins would be to have their tongues torn out by the roots !)

I'm not talking about 'dissing' personal 'spirituality' (which is something I espouse, the idea that the whole Cosmos is ONE, and that there is no chosen race period) I am talking about being force-fed foreign language creeds that get badly mistranslated as time goes on and badly translated foreign texts that are riddled with pre-scientific superstitious nonsense at times, and at others are bold faced unabashed propaganda tracts.

Scholars who study such 'propaganda' type language (especially since the time of Freud's nephew who was a specialist on these things in the 1920s) quickly note how the 'bible' is written generally along very crafted propaganda-language lines - something that took centuries to perfect, but they found that it worked (at least for the masses, and that was good enough for them). Where it didn't work and the Church had the power to punish those who did not toe the line, they tortured and executed.

Now that those dark days are past, we find ourselfves in yet another deluge of mass media propaganda (especially from those TAX FREE mega churches in the US) where uncomforable little facts (e.g. the mixed and contradictory theologies in the text within the so-called OLD and within the NEW Testaments as well as between them & the actual facts of the textual mess of the MSS evidence themselves which require decades to analyse properly).

Try not to confuse 'spirituality' (which is a universal phenomenon open to all) with religion (which is a closed system of beliefs and superstitions open only to believers or 'chosen people' or 'master races' etc.)

The Weltanschauungen in the Old Testament and in the New Testament do NOT have a single coherent message, although they do share some points in common, most of them negative (chosen people/master race sexism and racism is at the base of both 'canon' sets); Eventually there will be made more 'study versions' of these texts that will show lay persons how to read a criticus apparatus (this is NOT rocket science, people: it only shows where the older hand copied Manuscripts (aka 'ancient authorities') differ in any given 'reading' and there are more than 20,000 differences between the texts, some of them whole chapters.

I would like to see more acadamic versions of the texts in the future which should feature ORIGEN like HEXAPLA type set of 6-8 columns to show all the known variant readings at a glance. But churches AND Syagogues do not like their parishoners to know much about the textual problems that really do exist (the Catholic Church as late as the 1950s made it a cardinal sin to read the text of the bible in English, which is fairly recent !)

It's like the Ecole Biblique deliberatley NOT publishing the Dead Sea Scroll material (which revealed a LOT of older textual variants, some for the first tme) and is sort of like that interior wallpaper designer asking to keep the lights real dim so people in the room won't notice all the differences between the papers staring at them right in their faces, etc. )

If you REALLY want to learn about the complexities of these matters, there are a number of books you can get ahold of. To start with, read the beginner's guide called WHO WROTE THE BIBLE? by Elliott Friedman, a pupil of the famous Dr Frank Cross of Harvard. Alot of the basics of Graf-Welhausen's source theories from the 1890s are fine tuned in his overview and you can almost see the progression of ideas in the Torah and the Prophets &tc. although he does not tackle the NT ('the bible' to Jews means, well..the Old Testament !)

Well, if the information I am sharing with you is new to you, the sooner the better to get into the thick of things and start dealing with sober facts--some of which can be hard to swallow at times, but there you are !

reply to post by Sigismundus


Hi Sigs,

Although you still have not answered my question directly, indirectly I will have to take that as a no. And this to me is sad. I respect your reasons for thinking the way you do and am enlightened by your sheer knowledge you have given me. ( I WILL INVESTIGATE) There are more truths than non truths, and to me that is worth holding on to. As for your own personal theory (I assume you do have one) I would love to here what you have to say. Whenever your ready I am here.

PS Im not done with you...friend

Hi Oliveoil and Sigismundus,

I'm sorry if I've interrupted a two-way but it seems to me that you are both Truth Seekers, who have taken different paths to understanding.

My path has included rejecting taking a purely academic path, such as yours seems, Sigismundus, even though I welcome the seemingly random opportunities of learning knowledge such as you have shared. I agree entirely that Biblical Truths about the human condition and our relationship with God has been hijacked by power-mongers and money-grabbers.

The Biblical information about Jesus (Thank you for the full translation of the Man's name!) really is unique. The life of Love He lived and taught, was completely at odds with anything that the established authorities of the day promoted. He stood outside of all accepted teaching and morality. Yet the writings tell us that the common people heard Him, understood His message of Love and yearned to accept it into their hearts and into wider society, which to the authorities would have seemed like revolution and therefore a terrible threat to the status quo, the master/slave mentality that exists within all forms of organised and systemic human construct.

The Bible promotes the idea that Humanity is in need of a Messiah, and those, who for whatever reason, believe that this Messiah has come, has been rejected by the world and will redeem us nontheless as He has conquered the only True inevitability of each of our lives, death, seem entirely sincere in their assertion that they have a personal relationship with God.

For this reason, I chose a more spiritual route to understanding. I decided to contemplate and test the reality of Jesus the Man, Jesus, the Crucified Man, and the Risen Christ by reading Bible verses in moderation, really focusing on the words the Bible tells us He spoke and the miracles He is reported to have performed.

I then put the Bible aside and prayed for understanding. In this way, my path lead me into a direct relationship with God.

In reading the Books attributed to Saul and his followers, I can find no definitive indicator that he was anything other than a power-monger. Jesus never said that after He was gone, He would send a Jew to the Gentiles to spread His message. He said, 'Many will come after me but do not be deceived for the Law and the Prophesies have been fulfilled.'

Originally posted by Joecroft
Blind faith is extremely rare and is something people only talk about when they don’t really understand faith, as if all faith is blind and therefore stupid and that’s why they think they can never achieve it.

I find it is extremely popular and the only type of faith most people know. It is nothing more than a belief of acceptance, and an excuse/cop out for people to not explain themselves.

A man who does not follow the commandments is not faithful at all. And being faithful has not a thing to do with blind belief. The reason the word gets a bad rap is because of the number of people who use it as a cop out. When pushed into a corner, it's a Christians last hurrah - faith.

Yes, but belief is a starting point for most people, it’s like a stepping stone, that can lead to understanding.

Knowledge of the holy is understanding, not belief, not acceptance and so forth. How can one be faithful to the understanding, to knowledge of the holy when they have none of that understanding?

If I had been a Christian, then I would have rejected my experience completely. Because while I can show you were the bible mentions it, my experience is not in itself inline with Christian/Church doctrine. In fact, they would say that even Satan can appear as a being of light and that is what I saw/experienced. Because if I do not confess that Jesus is Lord then I am false, and if my experience was not of Jesus, then it is impossible.

Do you know how many times I've had John 14:6 quoted to me as the reason why my experience is false? Do you know how many times I've had to show the bottom half of John 14? And you know what is funny - they never even knew the bible said that. Why not? Because the preacher man doesn't quote those things. Instead, they go from verse to verse to paint their own picture. So, they go from John 3:16 - with no explanation of what it means to believe, to John 14:6, with no explanation of what Jesus is defining himself as in that, which is to instead take focus away from the way, the truth and the life and exchanges it for "Jesus" the idol.

The fact of the matter is that I could not have had my experience if I was a Christian. Because my beliefs and faith would have gotten in the way. If I had been a Christian, then I would have rejected anything which was not in line with my beliefs. The only way for such to have happened and to be accepted with me being a Christian would have required my "faith" to be shaken up.

And I hope she doesn't mind, but I am going to use Grandma who posts here as an example of this. I doubt you can find someone here with more faith than she has/had in these things. I also believe her experience to be true based on the understanding and meaning I can see in her experience.

She of course had a NDE. In her experience she had her "faith" shaken. She did not get the grand welcoming she expected, that her "faith" had told her of. She instead got a rather rude awakening. This is not to say all that she experienced was bad or whatever, but that she was shown a few errors in her "faith". What got me to take notice of her story were things I knew to be true. Where as she was made to clean up a bunch of blood and found out that blood was not desired. It was that which personally astounded me about her experience - because for her to have that experience and to see that with it going so far against her beliefs tells me she is not just making it up. Her experience was very personal.

Now, in order for her to come to believe and understand her experience, it required a change in faith for her. It required her to leave some of the things she had come to believe over the years. This wasn't easy for her to do, and I'm pretty sure she still struggles with it. Even as she tells people today what she witnessed - I have seen "Christian" after "Christian" deny her experience as soon as her experience does what? Goes against their faith/beliefs. These people rebuke her and tell her she must have been with demons. Never mind the fact that if she was among demons, then one would have to question the faith anyway etc - but even that would be dismissed as a lack of faith or whatever on her part by those people etc.

This is just my opinion, I can't speak for Grandma personally. But to me it is clear that her biggest struggles after her experience are the result of her faith and belief that were there before. And in fact, her experience in many ways attacked those very things. I know she still struggles with these things, and even as it is she will still speak kindly towards belief/faith and so forth. Which is why I say I doubt you will find a better example of someone with "faith" - yet her experience was so deep in meaning she is unable to avoid it. When you are shown understanding and such that is of the truth, you can not ignore it.

So you tell me this belief is good. But I see tons and tons of examples of where it is not good. I think the good people are good people in spite of religion, in spite of belief and so forth, not because of it. Some people are just good hearted people and would act in such a manner no matter what.

Proverbs 8:5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

Those with beliefs are foolish, and only their good hearts guide them correctly.

It's just a matter of luck if a belief is right. Choosing a religion is about like having a group of 5 equations in a list, and having the person pick one of the 5 equations as true. If that person is right or not is just a matter of chance. And for a laugh you could make all 5 of them false and the person wouldn't have the first clue. Or you could make all 5 of them true and the person wouldn't have the first clue. So how can this be good?

My favorite Einstein quote: Any fool can know a thing, the point is to understand.

Any fool can know that 1+1=2. Any fool can repeat "Jesus is truth", they can repeat whatever you tell them. But it is 100% useless. If a man's only knowledge of math is to repeat 1+1=2 and to follow the symbols of 1+1=2 around, then what good is it to that man? NONE. Is that man able to apply that to his daily life? No. Is that man able to use that in order to find out if other things are true or false? No. All that man knows is that if someone says 1+1=2 then they are speaking the "truth", and then they will reject anything that says otherwise, even a 2+2=4. Because they only believe, they do not understand.

And as men are taught by the religions, taught by the "pharisees" to only memorize and repeat 1+1=2, then they are denied understanding. This Jesus says of them often. When this is done, they are made into even greater children of hell. They are blinded. And that is the blind faith all across the world. That is "Christianity". That is "Islam". That is "Judaism". And yet, all 3 based on the same book that speaks against such things. But belief keeps them in check otherwise.

There is no defense of it. We have seen wars, torture, genocide and all sorts of death and destruction at the hands of those with "beliefs". If belief is of the good vine, then why does it bring such horrid fruit? If these things were good as you say, then we should see good fruits. Yet, if you look closely you will see that the good fruits only come from those with understanding of heart, and you see that fruit among people of any culture. So, how can we attribute such a quality to belief/religion? We can't.

And I'm sure we can name off many people who found religion and bettered their lives. Yet even this is also really a lie. What bettered them was their desire to do so, most likely as a result of hitting rock bottom. I speak here from experience, I've been homeless and hit rock bottom and had to pick myself up. I did so not because of religion, but because of my desire/dedication to do so. It's also good when other people help others, and so forth - not trying to knock people helping others for sure. But the point of this is that you are really only attributing people who are doing things from an understanding of heart to belief, and that is the error in it. That these things happens is not a result of belief, it's a result of people with good hearts. They would happen even among those without belief. If it was a result of belief, then it would be that way among them all.

It is only on the same level as evil to where such things become justified for existing. As all things happen for a reason, and there is a lesson to be learned in all this. But that doesn't make it right anymore than murder existing makes it right to murder.

Bit of a rant there sorry. But this is a very important thing to see. Beliefs are bad for you, understanding is not. There is a big difference between the man who believes and the man who understands. 1 is blind, and 1 can see. It is impossible for a man who only believes to be faithful because they do not understand how to be faithful to it. Only a good heart can overcome such. It's the entire reason Jesus is about the understanding rather than the written law/belief of the Pharisees.

out of space, will get the rest in the next reply.

Sorry for the delayed reply, got busy with work and stuff.

Originally posted by Joecroft
People do experience the spirit of God, there called “born again Christians”

Your experience is unique, and was followed by you being led to the bible to find Jesus words, where you recognized the Father. Most people do it the other way around, this is why people need Jesus. The only way for most people to hear the Fathers voice, is through Jesus words in the bible.

I call them labeled again Christians. Being born of spirit is a specific experience. You say my experience is unique, but that is not really true. Being born of spirit is being born of spirit. Finding the father is finding the father. Either way the understanding should be the same, and I don't see that. I've never meet each and every one of them etc, but from what I've seen - far from it.

Originally posted by badmedia
I kind of agree with you here, I think an initial belief in God/Father through faith is fine but people must also seek the Father and the born of the spirit experience. This is actually what Jesus talks about but yes when people believe all the dogma and doctrines that they are brought up with, just through faith, it can actually blind them from not only seeking the truth, but actually finding it. This is why I think those who believe in God/Father must still continue to seek.

Well all things happen for a reason and that is about as much as I can say in support of beliefs. Outside that, all I can say is that in the end it's neither needed or wanted.

Originally posted by Joecroft
How can the spirit/Father be saying “I am the true vine, and my Father is…etc etc”?

That doesn’t make any sense…

Yes and No

It’s part of the car but it’s not the car.

Do you think the engine stops being the engine, just because it is part of the car?

If the Car could speak and it said...
“I am the engine/vine and my Car/Father is the etc”, doesn’t make any sense. The Father/Car wouldn’t refer to itself, as “My Car/Father is etc”

If the Car/Father was speaking, it would say something like…
“I am the engine/vine (The first part would still be true of the Car/Father) and I am the Car/Father

I agree with what you are saying, the Father is greater and is in all things. Having said that though, a person or Jesus can keep their individual identity and at the same time, be a part of the Father. I guess the big question for you is, is Jesus just a normal man with the spirit of the Father speaking through him, or is he something greater than men but not greater than the Father.

Tree is part of the forest. Can't have a forest if you don't have a tree. But you can focus only on the tree, or only on the forest to see that. And this is same for father/son. Especially since the difference is merely perception/perspective.

Originally posted by oliveoil
This is a continuation from a previous thread where the OP suggested I start another so we wouldn't hijack the one we were on.Everyone please feel free to weigh in.You may be familiar with the story already however, those who are not I will give you a quick overview.

Saul was a Hellenist Jew who was one of the most active persecutors against an early sect of Aramaic and Hellenist Jews of Christ followers AKA the Way.

One day on his way to Damascus intent on rooting out followers of this sect,he was knocked to the ground and blinded by a blaze of light. He then heard a voice say "Saul,Saul, why do you persecute me? Who are you lord? asked the stricken Saul. I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.but rise and enter the city and you will be told what to do.

After that vision, apparition, dream, (what ever you want to call it)he continued to Damascus where he spent three days blinded in a stupor.

Then a man named Ananias, who was a follower of the Way,was told by Jesus that this man Saul was praying and that Ananias was to go and lay his hand on him so that his sight may be restored.Ananias was hesitant and said to Jesus,I have heard many reports on this man Saul and how he harmed many saints (followers of the Way) And has come to Damascus by authority of the chief Priest to arrest all who the name of Jesus. Jesus answered and said,Saul is my chosen instrument to carry his name before the Gentiles, and will be showed how much he must suffer for his name.

Ananias went and cured him of his blindness and from that day forward Saul went from persecuting the Hellenist Jews that followed Christ to becoming one. Long story short, Saul ended up preaching the Gospel of Jesus though out the lands.

Eventually this small sect of Christ followers called the Way would eventually be called Christians.Saul's final years would be spent as a Roman prisoner. He was most likely beheaded.His soul mission in life was to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus.

Some would have you believe that Saul was an anti Christ and that he founded Christianity which is the false religion that goes against all that was taught by Jesus in the Gospels.Their claims are the usual contradictions that are easily refutable.

My reasoning is this, If these people believe what Jesus was saying in the Gospels (Matthew,Mark,Luke , John) Why cant they believe that Jesus appeared to Saul,and Ananias in the book of Acts? They were both authored by the same authors.Why believe one and not the other?

If you have any comments or would like to help me figure this out please do.

Mods, please post where appropriate. thanks and Happy New year!

well just look at the evidence- you can't blame the shadow gov for 9/11 but you know, based on the resultant history that it was them
same with saul- since that man Christianity became the evil, society-controlling power it is today......it's called deductive reasoning, i believe.
didn't joseph smith fall on his knees before some apparitions too? just because someone says they're god doesnt make it true......

reply to post by badmedia



Hey Badmedia

Sorry for the delay. My computer was infected with a rootkit virus, apparently released by accident, via a recent Microsoft update, affecting all windows xp users.

Originally posted by badmedia
I call them labeled again Christians. Being born of spirit is a specific experience. You say my experience is unique, but that is not really true. Being born of spirit is being born of spirit. Finding the father is finding the father. Either way the understanding should be the same, and I don't see that. I've never meet each and every one of them etc, but from what I've seen - far from it.

Originally posted by badmedia
Bit of a rant there sorry. But this is a very important thing to see. Beliefs are bad for you, understanding is not. There is a big difference between the man who believes and the man who understands. 1 is blind, and 1 can see. It is impossible for a man who only believes to be faithful because they do not understand how to be faithful to it. Only a good heart can overcome such. It's the entire reason Jesus is about the understanding rather than the written law/belief of the Pharisees.

I guess I’m looking at this from my own perspective of believing in a God. I didn’t have any religious upbringing and when I first met Christians, I couldn’t just believe the bible by faith. My first step was just to try and believe there could be a God and I started to study creationism and the theory of evolution etc, even though I had no scientific background at all. I rejected creationism and I also began to realize that science did not have all the answers either. To cut a long story short and to try and bring this back to my point, I can’t prove there is a God and neither can anybody else, so faith has to come into the picture somewhere.

My belief in a God, is partly based on understanding and faith combined, even though I have had some experiences which I feel where from God. I personally think this is how all faith works, in that there will be a combined percentage, that is understanding together with a percentage based on faith. My experience required an initial tiny faith/belief in God before I began to investigate things and look for truth and even entertain the bible to some extent. Getting back to your experience, you have had this understanding given to you, without any initial faith based leap.

This is partly why I said it was unique because people (and thinking more abut people from a non religious upbringing point of view here) have to make a leap of faith in order to just start to search and maybe then read Jesus words and only then have the experience of being born of the spirit. Another reason why your experience is unique, is not because of the experience itself but the order in which it occurred i.e. most people find the bible first read Jesus words and only then become born of the spirit. You did this the other way around, I’m not saying it can’t or hasn’t been done before but it is fairly unique in my experience so far.


I think I can see what your getting at in terms of people who just automatically believe everything as a whole package deal, which comes from a specific Christian doctrine, without seeking out those truths themselves. I mean not every Christian doctrine out there, can say for certain, that it has the absolute truth, even though they all have Christ at the core of their beliefs.


- JC