Anybody Just Disagree With God?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

sadly enough... IF Jesus or someone claiming to be Jesus told me the bible as it stands is 100% truth...

i would have to call said person a liar...

And if it was the actual Jesus... I would be switching teams immediately

We must remember that we are humans with human understanding and thought processes. Even the most enlightened individuals argued with God. The problem is this, they argued with the written word, or their understanding of the written word. No one really disagrees with God outside of the written word. All that you perceive God to be you have derived that from your own limited understanding of the written word.

I believe in the reality of the Bible, that holy men of God wrote as they were moved by God. That is why we believe that God inspired the Bible. But that phrase, holy men of God, includes those we might not ever read about. God revealed Himself to our generation through the written word so it becomes important to understand Him.

There are ancient parallels of God throughout the world. I believe God revealed Himself in all times, and in all places, to all people, to offer salvation. Do those parallels means that it is are different Gods? There was an original narrative, an original revealing of God and when you see those ancient writings even on clay tablets and steles, you begin to understand that one God was indeed revealed.

When you read the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Flood of Noah, were they two different men or was there an original account of one man? I look at it as one man in the original account. We only know him as Noah because that is what the Hebrews called him. All ancient cultures had an account of the flood, so it lends to credence of an event and all those accounts have shared imagery.

When the different languages came into being, now there were new names of God, in those languages. Is this universalism? Not at all, because universalism tries to bring every message under one heading to make them all equal, whereas history proves there were singular events, those accounts were carried with those people to where they went and over time, the messages were polluted and no longer contained any truth.

When I read something ancient, I want to know what I am reading, how it affected them, what their theology was. If it was polluted, I can tell when the pollution happened. Prince Guatama took a polluted theology and created his own new one that kept out the original message of redemption.

Buddhism is a faith based solely in opinion. Call Prince Guatama enlightened, but it was only his opinion he was. No one can prove he reached enlightenment, so to put him on an equal status with Jesus is a little disingenuous, because Jesus did not begin a new religion, He merely defined the old religion in a better way. But Jesus is eternal, He was eternal before the world was created. He continually pointed to scripture that was already written and said "That was me". He did not have to reach enlightenment, He already always was, because He IS the light.

Go back as far as you can, God was revealed in written records everywhere. But cultures and societies began to turn away and pollute the truth of God. When people rejected a truth, and inserted something they wanted instead, truth was no longer truth. You can literally trace this pollution. But the Hebrews maintained the original words they received, it has never changed and we can rely on the Hebrew scriptures as legitimate. Don't assume that paper was the only medium of written communication.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Buddhism is a faith based solely in opinion. Call Prince Guatama enlightened, but it was only his opinion he was. No one can prove he reached enlightenment

Similar to the fact that no one can "prove" anything about Jesus... aside from how his writing makes one feel inside... Im not sure what Buddhism has to do with anything i said though...

so to put him on an equal status with Jesus is a little disingenuous, because Jesus did not begin a new religion, He merely defined the old religion in a better way.

I don't recall ever saying he was equal...

But Jesus is eternal, He was eternal before the world was created. He continually pointed to scripture that was already written and said "That was me"

Where did he say "that was me"?

He did not have to reach enlightenment, He already always was, because He IS the light.

Im not denying anything about Jesus... Buddha on the other hand had a different approach towards spirituality... A more practical method so to speak, that being Meditation....

And i believe Jesus meditated and taught it... and such things were likely removed from what is written about him... Or possibly just not included because his followers didn't understand the use for it

Originally posted by Akragon

Most logical people reject the idea that the bible is 100% truth... those same people usually find the idea that God wrote or even inspired the bible completely ridiculous as well...

I believe Jesus and His Father.

Just not the Bible totally... There are truths in the Bible, but there are also things in it that should not have made Canon.

Also the beliefs of most Christians about Christianity doesn't make sense/illogical in terms of flesh and spirit and nature of God.

They make God pleasing to the flesh, which is a false doctrine that will deceive many, preventing many from rebirth in the Spirit because of the worship of flesh.