The New Birth

[Mycernius]

Ooo, look, if he quotes the bible enough times then maybe you will see that he speaks the truth, especially if he uses bold, because it makes it so much more truthful. *sarcasm off*

Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.' John 3:3.

His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.

What He said, is pretty plain.

The question is, Are you born again?

[JM]

Originally Posted by sscr01

Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.' John 3:3.

His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.

What He said, is pretty plain.

The question is, Are you born again?

1st.. Using the bible to proof anything is a bootstrapping argument.. I could say I have a piece of paper beside me that says

" SSCR101 Raped a Person "

What it said, is pretty plain

The Question is.. Did You?

[JM]

Originally Posted by Someday

Jon,

I agree with you in many respects, but not for the same reasons really.

I do not share your view that because some things may have been changed in it here and there, that the Bible does not reveal Truth. Scholars are not really in much agreement over what could be a change and what may not be. Revelations for example, Many scholars place it's writing in the years 68 or 69 during Nero's reign. Others believe it was later, near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. It was believed to have been edited in the middle 2nd century, but then a papyri fragment from about 115 was discovered that showed if that particular part was edited, it was much earlier.
Scholars have to earn a living too, and it helps their career to find things. Sometimes they may be right, but imho they often end up wrong.
Paul used a scribe to write his letters, of that many are sure. If this is the case, and the Gospel writers did the same, does this change what they said in some way? For instance, the Gospel of John and Revelations again. Both claimed by many to be the same author. They are both high in "Christology", refer to Jesus as the lamb, and stress Jesus' divine side. One is written in flawless Greek (with an Aramaic flow), the other has many grammatical errors. One uses the same word consistently for lamb, while the other consistently uses another word for lamb. This only suggests different scribes, not different authors. Were they dictated or written? If they were dictated, what language did John dictate them in, Greek or Aramaic? Was Polycarp whom Irenaeus knew a disciple of John, correct in saying John the Apostle was John the Elder? Poly carp even quotes Revelations thusly "For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil". Was he truly a follower in direct contact with the apostles as many claim?
The authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea of why I personally believe there is merit in reading the Bible as we have it today. Newer ones have better translations than older English versions, and overall seem to be improving in that respect.

We agree about many other things, especially when it comes to absolute truths and such. There are truths, then there are Truths, but none of us have all of it, even if the Bible were totally flawless, it is still just a piece of Absolute Truth.

Blessings

Ah.. see how easy it is to misunderstand through Text? We interpret what we think a person is saying

Someday.. I feel the bible stories have some truth in it as they have some things which are false

Same with many of the other beliefs, religions, texts, audios, videos in the world.

My point is.. each of us can only discern that for ourselves.. and what we believe is truth may not be absolute.

[Someday]

Jon,

Perhaps you are right.

In fact, despite my defense of the Bible, I do have some issues with the way many Christians treat it. Many have elevated it to the level of Jesus Himself, and that has always bothered me. While I believe it does have a certain revelation of the will of God, it is not itself God. It is treated like an idol by many, especially by some of the church groups who call themselves "Bible believing". This idol worship is exactly why they must insist on it's infallibility. It has to have the same attributes as God Himself. To say it is not infallible is treated by modern Christians as a blasphemy.
Jesus warned the Pharisees about this very kind of thing when He told them "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40).
*Yes, I did just use scripture to say scripture is not what saves*
The Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is. When we call the Bible the Word, we have just replaced Jesus with an idol.

But..........I think the Bible holds an important place in our faith as it is a revelation. We just must always remember that it is just that. A revelation, not infallible, but still extremely useful in understanding our faith. I never understood Christianity untill I understood more of the Bible. It is remarkable in it's ability to hide while it reveals. The Bible, of course, is an object. To hold any object as sacred is idol worship. Like all idol worship, this leads to dogma. It separates one from the living God, and it may ultimately hinder us from coming to Jesus in the same way the Pharisees were hindered.

Learn the scriptures, but do not worship them. If all of the Bibles on Earth were burned, our relationship to God would be the same. He wants us to come to Him. Even the illiterate are invited to join the Feast of In-gathering.

Blessings

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Someday

If all of the Bibles on Earth were burned, our relationship to God would be the same. He wants us to come to Him. Even the illiterate are invited to join the Feast of In-gathering.

Blessings

I suspect that your relationship with God would be different. If the Bible, or any other holy book didn't exist, then you would have a more personal idea of what god would be, rather than being told by so called bible experts (pastors, priests, vicars, etc) what your relationship with god should be. The point is though, that you might want to share your experience with god to the rest of the world because you feel so good about it. When people do this is gets written down, turned into a holy book by those who agree and once more you have a holy book that people will take to heart and will not deviate from it, despite that over the years society, morals and ideas change.