Dan56

Hey, I didn't write the law "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22). Modern man still requires blood (death) for breaking the 6th commandment. But you are correct, Jesus shed the blood required by law. Not really The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and since most liberal Christians don't literally accept Christ as deity, I still don't fully comprehend what 'spirit' their faith is based on? If a person does not believe that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, or that he resurrected from the grave, than it seems illogical to have faith in his Holy Spirit? Does that make sense?

There's no definitive proof that any book is inspired by God, it must by accepted by faith. There is evidence of fulfilled prophesy, ancient biblical history, and in nature itself, but there is no tangible proof outside of what the writings themselves proclaim. By the same token, if the bible is spiritually inspired, then its truths would not likely be revealed by physical evidence, but through spiritual revelation via the Holy Spirit.,

In Exodus 34:1, God clearly says that He would rewrite the same commandments, Deuteronomy 10:1-4, 5:22, and 4:13 confirm this. I believe that Exodus 34: 27-28 are consistent with the writing of the Pentateuch, and all the other laws contained in the covenant. There are references to a definite "book" being consistently written in, first mentioned in Exodus 17:14 and in 13 other places. "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4) and Moses read the book of the covenant to all the people (Exodus 24:7). The first tablets were written by God and broken, the second set of tablets were written by God and placed in the ark. Moses also wrote the commandments as God instructed in that 27th verse; "Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant". We wouldn't have them today if Moses didn't also record them in the 'book'.

I agree that the Word is alive in the hearts of people, and that it can be observed in nature. The texts just explains the Word and leaves less speculation. Without that foundation, meaning is lost, lessons are lost, and revelation is limited. I didn't add another condition, it was there all-along, and my previous post included repentance. You actions don't save you, in fact I'm quite sure of the opposite . Without the cross, we could repent until we were blue in the face and still not escape judgment. Sins were not atoned for until his crucifixion, the law requires blood. I concur with your last sentence, I'd leave Christianity too. God is love and he is forgiving, that's the beauty of Christianity.

The commandments are listed in Exodus 20:3-17. In anger, Moses broke the first set of tables (10 commandments) in Exodus 32:19. Then God made a second set of tables in Exodus 34. These can be read in Deuteronomy 5:7-21. Both sets are identical.

The problem is that when you discount the written word, what's left? Who is this "true God" that transcends scripture and where do you learn about him? Might I suggest that when you dismiss the written word, your simply left with your own ideological concept of what you think and want God to be. The written word tells us who the living Word was; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" ( John 1:14). The commandment being correctly interpreted is murder, not kill. Deuteronomy 19:10-13 defines it as "To lie in wait for the purpose of shedding innocent blood"(paraphrased). I agree that there is nothing compassionate about killing an adulteress or adulterer, but God's judgment is not ours. Without Christ, we are all dead in sin, and for the unfortunate souls prior to the cross, they were still under the curse of the law. The bible tells Dan that God never changes, and Dan tells you The Christian God tolerates very much from what I've seen, because He forgives every sin you commit when you repent of them.

From the fundamental point of view, its the biblical record of the true God. You would prefer a God who encouraged rebellion, witchcraft-idolatry, infidelity, perversion, theft, murder, deceit, etc? Would you prefer a God who encouraged married couples to cheat on each other in order to bring a little "balance" into the picture? I agree that God is a dictator in the sense that he sets the law and its not up for debate, but without law and order, the peaceful and loving utopia that we would all prefer could never exist. Sin (evil) is disobedience to God, punishment and death is the result of evil, not the source.

That's cool, we all believe what we believe and accept what we can. The OT laws were necessary to govern God's chosen, they may seem harsh and unloving, but what would have happened without them? God’s love is a balance between justice and mercy. In the absence of justice, evil runs amuck, and what loving God would allow that? The key to understanding God’s love lies in understanding the nature of God's wrath. God requires atonement and restitution for every sin, and this appears to be the unacceptable side of God from the liberal point of view.

There are 'conditions' to salvation. Salvation is offered by God through grace, but the message of salvation requires obedience in faith and repentance on our part. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). This verse would seem to indicate that salvation is not automatic. Your correct about our different conclusions, since liberals don't view the bible as inerrant, scriptures will never apply to them. I don't understand the Liberal view of having faith in the 'spirit of love' represented by Christ, while simultaneously denying the accuracy of the scriptures which reveal the Spirit represented in Christ? Isn't your faith partly based in the same book? The difference would seem to be that Liberals pick and choose what they find appealing and discard what they find objectionable, while fundamentalist accept it all.

I watched most of the video's and would not classify Bishop Spong as a Christian. The bottom line always comes back to the fact that liberal Christianity rejects Christ as the son of God, and rejects that salvation only comes through his sacrifice. The denial of these 2 fundamental tenants of Christianity does not support a full or true believe in Christ imo. I appreciate that the liberal prospective evolves around the love and compassion taught by Jesus, but in denying His sacrifice, they're forsaking the quintessential demonstration of God's love for us. The liberal philosophy would thereby leave a person in danger of God's judgment, because the wages of sin is death, and sin can only be blotted-out via the cross and repentance. We cannot save ourselves. Or perhaps those who 'see evil everywhere' are simply watching the nightly news

Moses didn't have a navigational problem, Deuteronomy 8:2 says; "Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands." God kept them wandering on purpose, it was a 40 yr probation period. This may be one reason The Book of Enoch was not included in the bible. Either that, or a very bad translation error?

I don't know the age of the earth, but suspect its hundreds of millions of years old. There's nothing in the bible that suggest otherwise. I believe there was an earth age prior to the one we're in. This first earth age ended (was utterly destroyed) and Genesis 1 describes the creation of the second earth age. It is argued that the correct translation of Genesis 1:2 is that the earth 'became' void and without form, it wasn't created that way. Millions of years passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I believe Jeremiah 4:19-28 describes the destruction of that first earth age, 2 Peter 3: 5-6 also describe this. 3 Earth Ages Not all Christians subscribe to this, but it makes sense to me.

I believe the literal view is clear from the verse you previously quoted; "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" The sons of God (fallen angels) had children with women. Their progeny were giants (Nephilim). The Israelites failed to kill all of the Nephilim, and its unknown how many escaped to other countries. Enoch 6:2 confirms Genesis 6:4.

Just a couple of interesting sites; GIANTS FOOT PRINTS

You might want to stay out of the building... If your drained from resisting being possessed, I'd say your out-matched.

Where does the bible say that?

I watched the video of "The Secret' and thought it was crazy... No offense, just my opinion. But of course, its a struggle for me to just maintain partial control over myself, so the thought of controlling others is out of the question.

Agreed, believing a lie can produce fear, but the Truth sets you free.

I agree with you, because most places where the bible uses the word 'fear', it is better translated 'revere'. That's cool, and it makes sense to me... I mistakenly assumed that biblical stories were irrelevant to you because you didn't believe them, but I suppose that even a questionable story has meaning if a person finds value in it. I understand what your saying.. Its possible to fear the unknown via imagination, but I think there's a distinct difference between being frightened by a movie, and the reality of genuine fear. This is true, there's no question to me that God reveals himself in Spirit, but I also believe the bible is a useful tool (record) in gaining understanding and clarification. And you are correct, I am not Catholic.

I was just interested in how/what a person basis the Spirit of Jesus on, when they reject the scriptures which describe it? We know Christ through the written Word, and you wrote that you believe in the 'same' Spirit that was and is in Jesus? If the bible is false, then I don't understand how a person could identify a spirit as being the 'same' Spirit that dwelt in Christ? How do you define the Spirit of Christ without using the bible as a reference? You can't fear something unless you believe its real. Fear of God requires faith in God. Circular logic imo. Your saying that the 'SAME' Spirit which led Jesus to show others what isn't God's Will, also show's you that the bible isn't true? If so, then you can't possibly identify your spirit and being the 'same' as Christ, since you've rejected the only tangible testimony of what Spirit led Jesus.

If you believe in the same Spirit that was and is in Jesus, is it that same Spirit which convinced you that the bible isn't true? And if the bible is false, how can you trust or believe what is written about the Spirit of Jesus? It seems like circular reasoning to me, with no foundation of belief.

Ephesia? There's no such place. Never heard anything about it and don't understand the relevance of your post?

I concur, if I was hospitalized and the doctors brought a cat into my room to help me out, I'd ask to be transferred to another hospital immediately. I once got to observe the 'laying on of hands' by a religious group at a hospital, but the recipient died the next day. Seeing is believing, believing that it didn't work. I'm guessing that the reason Jesus wasn't sued for that mud treatment, was because it actually worked.

Well, we can blame God for creating the evil things which we choose to do, but do you think that song & dance will fly with God come judgment day? Everything God created was good, God didn't create evil, but he will destroy it.

Is the designer or manufacturer of an automobile morally responsible for the drunk driver who runs down and kills an innocent child? Can we attribute evil to God on the basis of our own sinful choices? Our unrighteous acts are contrived of ourselves, they aren't an extension of what God created.. The freedom to choose equates to evil choices. I don't agree with Catholicism either. The bible (Christ) is the ultimate authority for me, not some churches interpretation or rendition of what means what. I think your friend gave a perfect example of a church changing what's actually written in order to empower the church; "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 18;18). Perhaps the church never read Revelation 22:18? I agree with your basic impression of religion, much of it turns me off too. Revelation is prophesy revealed, because what Christ was showing John was yet to come. The Church is not a specific religion (denomination), but the many membered body of Christ, composed of people everywhere who believe in Him. Its sad that His simple Truth gets misconstrued by the traditions of men. That's why the bible is important to me, it helps me distinguish the Truth from the many ill-conceived doctrines being spewed from so many pulpits Yes... I believe that this authority was given to the Apostles (70) for the purpose of establishing the gospel, just as Moses was given authority (use of miracles) to free the Hebrews from Egypt. In a spiritual sense, our faith in Christ does heal us; 'By his stripes we are healed'. I do believe in a natural sense, that He heals through prayer, He heals through doctors, He heals through medicine and through wholesome living.