On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:40:25PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > I don't get the question. God decides what is and is not his word. > > Lots of people have claimed to write in the name of God. > > Ah, but that's the rub, who's deciding what is the real article and what > isn't? God's not chiming in. You do realize that exactly which gospels that > would go on to comprise the modern Bible were hotly debated centuries after > the supposed events took place. Debated by men, not God. There are many more > which are not included. So, why are you not asking what is in those Gospels > and why men, not God, decided they should not be distributed in the definitive > collection of Jesus' life? > You do realize that the ones that ended up in the Bible were the ones which were essentially universally agreed up upon, correct? Yes there was debate. There were people who wanted to subvert the process. There were people who were misguided. However, since I have faith that God was able to create the entire universe by speaking it into existence, I also have faith that He was able to preserve His Word. > > In what way? If you get a comp sci text book, you can reasonably asume > > that if something is not in it, the *author* did not think it was > > particularly important to the topic at hand. > > When I find contradictions like I do in the Bible you bet I would call > into question the author's veracity as well as his drinking habits. You'll > pardon me if I hold God to the same moderate standard I hold fellow man being > that he's supposedly superior to us all. > Right. Except that you have yet to actually point out a real contradiction. > > That word. I do not think it means what you think it means. > > No, it means exactly what I think it means. > > 1 : to hide under a false appearance > 2 : to put on the appearance of : SIMULATE > intransitive verb : to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, > or feelings under some pretense > There was no pretense or false appearance. Thus, you have misapplied the word. > > You obviously don't understand. Explaining it further obviously won't > > help either. Suffice it to say that the *point* is to love God above > > all else. > > Yeah, I get that's what you think it means but my *point* is that you > question the actions portrayed there. For example, wouldn't the sacrifice of > Lot's daughters better come from, I dunno.... his daughters? And it isn't > like Lot was protecting God himself here. Nope, just a pair of angels. So he > wasn't putting God above his family, he was just throwing out lambs to the > slaughter. > Mark 9 36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. God views doing something good for one of his own as doing something good for him. Saying they were "just a pair of angels" indicates that you don't understand this. > > As I and others have explained, that no longer applies. > > And as I pointed out in the very first message it does, in Jesus' own > words, that every OT law applies as much now as it did then. Now, the *men* > of your particular branch might hem and haw and found a nice, neat way to > dodge that issue but we're not talking what they have interpreted for you. As > you said, if it is in the Bible *you* believe *it*. > I do believe the Bible. Of course, you persist in taking things out of context. Jesus was illustrating that to get into heaven you had to be more righteous than the most righteous people living at the time and that to do that, you had to follow every last bit of the law and never stray from it. Of course, that was not humanly possible. He was explaining the need for humanity to depend on him for salvation. You can keep ignoring the explanation all you want, but that won't change it. > But... it is what men have put together... and translated several times > over the millennium... So my question to you is this. How exactly do you > know the will of God. Help me out here, what's the exact chapter and verse > where you're told you don't know the will of God again? > What are you rambling on about? The Will of God is expressed throughout the Bible. It talks about the things God finds pleasing and those things that He finds displeasing. For those things which are not directly stated in the Bible, he has sent the Holy Spirit to guide his children. The thing is, you have to *want* to know the will of God. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature