are we afraid of what the bible tells us?

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by plague
ARE WE REALLY AFRAID OF WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US

Of course. It requires each individual to make a choice. To either accept Christ or reject Him.

The choice is more like:
#1 (follow God)
seek and follow truth
and find the single track path to life
OR
#2 (follow man)
seek justification through religious exclusivism
and find the broad way to destruction

The bible is for #1, but the world abuses it as #2--because the world is afraid of the simple truth and the ineviable fork in the road of decision.

Along with the acceptance comes a responsibility, to listen to the Holy Spirit and begin to change from the inside out.

There is nothing one can do--there is no responsibility except to love and trust the voice of truth that's within. There is no need to listen if one 'surrenders'. And there is no 'choice' but 'surrender' once He taps on your soul's shoulder. This is not 'accepting' something--it is literally just giving up the driver's seat to God. Once and for all. When it is your turn. Because the Potter said so and you are the pot.
Pots don't drive, anyway.

Aside from that, the idea of 'accepting Christ' holds not even one shred of objective biblical truth. Anything other than 'objective' is 'subjective' and you know what that means.

In the canonized scripture, there is much talk of God 'accepting us' and a mention here and there about 'accepting (receiving) the gospel' but not any argument for 'accepting Christ.'

Most people are condemned for 'rejecting Christ' but yet they haven't even been 'served the (true) gospel' in order to 'receive it.' Instead of being the invited Guest of God, Himself--they are being placed on a spit then a platter with an apple in their mouth. That's not fair nor is it truly righteous.

You must reject sin and choose to live for God and with God.

Define sin in a purely scriptural explanation, then, please.

It also requires people to not play stupid.

I am not yet convinced it is 'playing' in the first place.

By this I mean when you hear about Christ and how He died for your sins, you are faced with the most important choice of your life and you either believe it or not. A person can no longer say, "I didn't know about Jesus".

What, that someone died?
That's not as as resurrection, yet 'life' gets third billing to 'death' and 'sins?'

This also isn't a generic thing, each individual must choose to accept Christ. It's an act of your will.

No, it is literally an 'act of God.' The kind your insurance will not cover.

Do you not see how backwards that is?
If God 'accepts' then it is God who 'acts' upon His own 'will.'
We do not 'accept' and so it is not our 'act' or our 'will.'

As far as being 'generic'--do you mean without label or branding? It is, too, certainly 'generic!' Because it is fair and just and so therefore it is purely generic.
'No respector of persons' is about as generic as it can get, IMO.

dear maddnessinmysoul.....
i do not agree .......
1) the slavery parts (and there actually all thruoght the bible) are more about human rights.....no i do not agree with slavery but everone is a slave to some degree.....and i think the world has not seen the last of slavery so yes i think its kind of important .....

2) sampson is an example of what lust and no selfcontrol can lead to ...a very important story.........

3)i think the flood story is fine.....and no one knows where the story truly came from......besides its in the begining skip it.......although youll miss the great rainbow explanation and the covent god makes......

4)genesis sets up the whole book......you cant realy get the jist without it.....

every story every gospel is very important in someway......

yes jesus did layclaim to who he thought he was several times throught the new test.......

and to say that stuff is the corruption in christianity when it was written before christianity is.......?????what did you mean?????

christianity corrupts the bible's presentation, to many people.

but the bible corrupts nothing.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Aside from that, the idea of 'accepting Christ' holds not even one shred of objective biblical truth.

That is incorrect.

ac·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spt)
v. ac·cept·ed, ac·cept·ing, ac·cepts
v. tr.
To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract.

Look up received in John 1:12 in a concordance

You are trying to say that receive and accept cannot mean the same and thus confusing the issue needlessly.


2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

The word accepted certainly can be used Biblically to refer to salvation because it's in the Bible.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Seems logical since it is an individual's fear that serves as the only tool that can be used (perceptionally) to discredit the bible.

I'm curious as to what exactly you mean by that.

I believe that the bible is based on fear. It was designed to keep people afraid.

It is designed to aid one in conquering fear with realizing that fear has a right to exist. I see no "evil" emotion existing if it were not for fear. How can anyone conquer fear when they are too afraid of facing it?

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I'm certainly not afraid of what the bible tells us since I think its semi-historical fiction and allagory at best. What does scare me are the people who actually believe it is litteral truth and then use it to justify oppression, hatred and discrimination of others.

I second that.

just me 2
The OT prophecied about the Savior, while the NT shouts "Here He is!!!"

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies, which is why Jews do not recognize him as the Messiah. The concept of a personal savior is not found in the OT.

Originally posted by dbrandt
That is incorrect.

ac·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spt)
v. ac·cept·ed, ac·cept·ing, ac·cepts
v. tr.
To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract.

‘Receive’ and ‘accept’ are not straight-across-the-board synonyms.

Originally posted by From Webster’s Thesaurus:
receive means to get by having something given, told, or imposed, and may or may not imply the consent of the recipient [to receive a gift, to receive a blow]; accept means to receive willingly or favorably, but it sometimes connotes acquiescence rather than explicit approval [he was accepted as a member, to accept the inevitable]

There is a nuance of difference between the two—one that is not so much pronounced in modern every-day speech but it is definitely pronounced in the bible.

Look up received in John 1:12 in a concordance.

G2983
lambano
A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively [probably objective or active, to get hold of; whereas
dechomai (to receive (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - accept, receive, take.)
is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while
aihreomai (to take for oneself, that is, to prefer.)
is more violent, to seize or remove.

If dechomai had been the word used in John 1:12, then your argument would be valid. But that was not the word used. Dechomai is not used in relation to the person of Christ in the NT, only to messengers and their message.

You are trying to say that receive and accept cannot mean the same and thus confusing the issue needlessly.

I’m not confusing the issue—I’m clarifying something that is already needlessly confused and misrepresented.

Saying ‘they can mean the same thing’ is not the same as ‘they do mean the same thing.’ Especially in light of how ‘accept’ is used currently as in the idea of ‘accepting Christ as your personal savior’, opposed to how ‘accept’ is used in the bible, as well as ‘receive.’

The idea of ‘accepting salvation’ is not biblical. Do you really think God would be so humanly foolish to give us the power to cut our own throats—by rejecting something we mostly don’t even believe/think/understand that we need? If so many in the world are able to thwart God’s long-standing plan by their own inherent blindness, then how powerful could God really be? God knows the human mind—inside and out—why would He not have a fool-proof plan for all His creations, instead of just those He decided to endow with just enough whatever to be wise enough to accept instead of reject the life preserver He’s thrown down? Does He love those who approve His Son more than those who don’t approve Him? Does God really give any weight to what any man approves and what he doesn’t?

To ‘accept’ a person is to approve that person. We have no authority to approve or disallow Christ—God has already approved Him. And by extension, has approved us.

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

The word accepted certainly can be used Biblically to refer to salvation because it's in the Bible.

Then any word can be used biblically just because it is in the bible?

The 2 Corinthians verse you cite doesn’t say anything about ‘accepting’ the person of Christ for a specific function, namely Savior—it only addresses 3 things:

• Receiving the words of another who is preaching Christ
  
• Receiving another spirit beside the Spirit from God
  
• Accepting another version of the gospel

That doesn’t support the idea of ‘accepting Christ’ on an individual level.

We can receive truth as truth—we can allow spiritual direction in our life—we can welcome someone who comes in the name of the LORD.

We can also reject these things.

But nowhere in the bible is it written that we must ‘approve’ the person of Christ to fulfill a specific role in our lives. Even Christ spoke of receiving, but only about receiving the words He spoke. He made no distinction between Himself and His words. But the idea of ‘accepting’ Him no longer is connected with hearing His truth; it is about taking, by choice, what He is supposedly offering for our personal benefit. There is no offer. What has been done has been done—it cannot be rejected, it is done on behalf of all. It was a gift, given by God, to all men—it is not the same situation as receiving the truth or receiving the spirit.

The focus is on salvation, not the gift of the spirit—given for the benefit of others. Salvation is about ‘me’ but the spirit is a gift given freely for the express purpose of serving others and giving them something good. Selective salvation isn’t good for anyone—except those who believe in such an unfair proposition.

Romans 5:6-8
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I don’t worry about death—but I do worry about the state of mind and of the heart of those that do—whether I know them personally or not, anyone with an unsettled soul is in need of good news and peace of mind. Why? Because they are human just like me and because there is no reason to allow suffering of another if it can be helped in any way at all, in truth, of course.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

All:
all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) always, any (one), every (one, way), as many as, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

Originally posted by spamandham
The concept of a personal savior is not found in the OT.

Nor the NT.

Originally posted by spamandham

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies, which is why Jews do not recognize him as the Messiah. The concept of a personal savior is not found in the OT.

He may have, if one is capable of decyphering the messianic code. However, to hand over the "secret" would be extremely detrimental to people. It is a thing the individual mind must come to know, or the individual mind can not find it, and the individual mind will not find it if it is provided to them. Complex explanation of perplexionating universal truth.

Is perplexionating a word.

maybe not yet, but I can find no other words to describe it.

plague, what about cutting all the gratituotous (spelling) violence from the bible?

or the occassions in which god can only be appeased by a human sacrafice?

or all the injustice to women?

or intolerance?

and you only addressed a few of my ideal changes to the bible.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham
The concept of a personal savior is not found in the OT.

Nor the NT.

Of course He is and of course it is. When the ethiopian eunuch was seeking the truth, God sent Philip to Him. A one on one encounter in which the eunuch personally accepted Christ.

Acts 8:26
And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

8:27
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

8:28
Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

8:29
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

8:30
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

8:31
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

8:32
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

8:33
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

8:34
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

8:36
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

8:38
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

8:39
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.


[edit on 12-12-2005 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
He may have, if one is capable of decyphering the messianic code. However, to hand over the "secret" would be extremely detrimental to people.

While I agree that parts of the Bible are clearly "encoded", I'm not convinced the whole thing is. It is a collection of books, many of which have been heavily edited.

Some are mythical compilations, such as Genesis, some are political allegory, such as the story of Jacob and Esau (actually an allegorical story to prove that Israel sold its birthright as the first born to to Juda), some are astrological symbolism, such as Daniel, Revelation, and at least the first two chapters of Matthew, some are symbolic lamentations, such as the oft misunderstood Isaiah 53, some are historical, some are poetic, etc.

The proper interpretation depends on the book in question, and sometimes even the chapters in question as linguistic analysis shows that many of the books have been redacted and appended over the ages.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham
The concept of a personal savior is not found in the OT.

Nor the NT.

Of course He is and of course it is. When the ethiopian eunuch was seeking the truth, God sent Philip to Him. A one on one encounter in which the eunuch personally accepted Christ.

A one-on-one encounter between the eunuch and Philip--who had the additional indwelling Spirit of Truth. The spirit comes on a personal basis, but rescue is global.

That encounter didn't make the eunuch a personal owner of one Savior--Christ did not become the eunuch's 'personal savior.' To become personal with the eunuch cuts all the rest out. All of the rest.

'Personal' implies something that is 'peculiar to a certain person; private; individual' or 'done in person or by oneself without the use of another person or outside agency.' Neither of those things fit the situation. Christ is the 'savior of the world.' This means there is no personal application for individual persons--no selection process or qualifying requirements to be able to have one's very own savior. No one gets 'first divies' on God just because they 'called it'.

The eunuch accepted Philip's testimony--he believed Philip was being sincere and truthful.
Based on that, he 'received' the gospel. He stated he believed that Christ was, indeed, the Son of God--meaning he believed in the resurrection and it's purpose.
Nothing was said about 'sin' or 'accepting a savior.' The eunuch did not have to give his approval of what Christ did or approve it as being applicable to himself.
It already was applicable and completed on the behalf of the world--before the eunuch ever even met Philip--it wasn't a question of allowing himself to be 'saved', it was a question of him hearing the truth from Philip and voicing his own conviction that what Philip said about Christ was true.

dbrandt - let me just say this.

I respect your faith more than you will ever understand.

I for one, understand what it must feel like to have faith in something that others 'consider' me mad for even 'considering.'

I don't believe in you or I, I believe we can co-exist and I believe we have.

I believe in God, Jesus, Abraham - need I go on?

The question is the source and when you find the source you will understand the question.

Try some buddha, he might enlighten you - or he might drive you completely mad.

Whatever that means .

Just think 'Sleeping Army.'

I'll share Chapter 1 when you are ready to read it.

It might open your eyes, but they will try to remain shut for as long as possible.

It's a parable, it's my philosophy, it's about religion, it's my religion. It's a little bit of ying and a little bit of yang and it's got some dragons thrown in there just for the sake of consideration.

Wait a second - you could call it 'Vivlio' (or biblio) depending on your pronounciation.

You call it the bible. What do you think I call it? What do you think Queenannie38 calls it?

Hopefully I'm just about mad enough to be understood and hopefully when the book comes out, which I hope it will - people won't misunderstand my intentions.

I've been scared of that for 20 years. I was born on the 30th of July 1985.

File-sharing? Downloading? Interfacing? Labels from God or man?

I think I might just stop now before I give you 'information overload.'

It happened to me twice and they're still calling me insane, even after all they've seen.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
plague, what about cutting all the gratituotous (spelling) violence from the bible?

or the occassions in which god can only be appeased by a human sacrafice?

or all the injustice to women?

or intolerance?

and you only addressed a few of my ideal changes to the bible.

these are all things pertaining to what god wants from the hewbrews ..this is there path to follow.....why should they cut those thing out........

and actually they do have books out there that have just the words of jesus......theres biblical books out there geared for young children that trim out the violence in some of the stories.......there out there you have to look.....

the bible wasnt written yesterday ...it reflected the times in which it was written ...it has already lost alot of meaning thru all the translations and edits...why would we want to edit it more???

Originally posted by plague

these are all things pertaining to what god wants from the hewbrews ..this is there path to follow.....why should they cut those thing out........

No, not the Hebrews. Israel. There is quite a difference.
Hebrew is an ethnicity, or a race, if you will. Israel is something that is decided by God alone, not by culture, language, or labels.

Israel was founded and established in a family of Hebrew (perhaps then it was actually 'Hibiru?') lineage--now Hebrew as a race is virtually non-existent--it has trickled down to modern times as the Jewish race--which is both a race and a religion...

It would seem very likely that the 'original nationality' of what became the Hebrews of Canaan was Mesopotamian/Sumerian/Chaldean, which are all basically the same, anyway--and essentially Babylonian, as far as just pure bloodlines go.

Actually, if you really think about it, the whole world arose from Sumer--we are all descended from Babylonians--that is, depending on where one personally places the Mesoamerican roots as far as pre- or ante-deluvian in the timeline. I personally think they, too, came from the same place as the rest--from evidence left behind about their culture.

I digress...not all Jews are of the ancient Hebrew bloodlines, nor are all Jews Israel. Israel is scattered among the whole world's population , and the path they were given to follow is the one upon which they are to serve the rest of the world.

no offense queenie but even thru your word play you still proved my point.......at that time the bible was speaking to the 12 tribes of israel which were of hebrew origin..it doesnt matter where they are now......this is why we are scared of what the bible tells us.....that in the bible god was speaking to the hebrews not everyone.........does this mean you cant listen ..no ..does this mean your doomed no.......does this mean you might have to reavaluate some beliefs....maybe yes...........maybe no....

Originally posted by queenannie38

That encounter didn't make the eunuch a personal owner of one Savior--Christ did not become the eunuch's 'personal savior.' To become personal with the eunuch cuts all the rest out. All of the rest.

Why do you say this? Why do you say that if Christ is the personal Savior of the eunuch He cannot be a personal Savior to anyone else?

I will agree that saved people don't own God, God owns us.

Originally posted by plague
no offense queenie but even thru your word play you still proved my point.......at that time the bible was speaking to the 12 tribes of israel which were of hebrew origin..it doesnt matter where they are now......this is why we are scared of what the bible tells us.....that in the bible god was speaking to the hebrews not everyone.........does this mean you cant listen ..no ..does this mean your doomed no.......does this mean you might have to reavaluate some beliefs....maybe yes...........maybe no....

Yes, I see that you understand quite well...

Cool.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I'm certainly not afraid of what the bible tells us since I think its semi-historical fiction and allagory at best. What does scare me are the people who actually believe it is litteral truth and then use it to justify oppression, hatred and discrimination of others.

I second that.

just me 2
The OT prophecied about the Savior, while the NT shouts "Here He is!!!"

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies, which is why Jews do not recognize him as the Messiah. The concept of a personal savior is not found in the OT.

This is a really cool article I found on the net:

One of the strongest objective evidences of Biblical inspiration if the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy. The bible is essentially unique among the religious books of mankind in this respect. Some of them contain a few vague forecasts, but nothing comparable to the vast number of specific prophecies found in the Bible. The same is true of modern "prophets", so-called. Such seers as Nostradamus, Jean Dixon, and others have made many predictions, but often they are nebulous and capable of various meanings. A few of their prophecies seem to have been fulfilled in a general way, but most of the have completely failed.



Prophets, to be legitimate, must stand the test of time. If the prophet was not completely correct 100% of the time he is a false prophet. Prophecy, to be valid, must predate the event; must be precise enough so as to not be vague; must have enough events described to be beyond human ability to calculate or manipulate; in other words not be something that man could do, without God's guidance.



Only God knows the future. He is able to "call the things that are not, as though they were" (Romans 4:17). He declares "the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done." (Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18). If one can demonstrate the ability to the future things that find exact fulfillment, it would follow logically that such a person, in possession of this gift, would be speaking on the behalf of God. His message therefore, would be valid.



Scholars suggest that there are about 1,000 prophecies altogether in the Bible --- some 800 in the Old Testament and about 200 in the New Testament. (3/82) It must be noted carefully that the gift of prophecy --- clearly operative during those by-gone ages where the Biblical documents were being prepared and validated as God’s Word --- was terminated near the end of the first century AD, when the New Testament was completed (1 Corinthians 13:8-10) There are many religions today that claim to have "prophets", but remember for a prophet to be from God there can be no errors, ever! That lets all of the "prophets" since the first century out.



PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST



The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany).



Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control:

Birth: Place, time, manner of.

Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial

Resurrection: Where did His body go?

By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies --- the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion!



To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly --- all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man --- if they had written them without God's inspiration!



The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? --- The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God!



Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah --- over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God?



Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ:



Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16

Son of God Psalm 2:6-7

Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14

Birthplace Micah 5:2

Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10

Darkness Psalm 22:2

Vinegar Psalm 69:21

Mocking Psalm 22:6-8

Nakedness Psalm 22:17

Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18

Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20

Burial Isaiah 53:9

Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10

Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10


These are from me (Just me 2) re: a "Personal Savior." There are many more, I just picked a few of them.

Luke 1:47
"...and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,"

Luke 2:11
"Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord."

Acts 5:31
"God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel."

Titus 1:4
"To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior."