Pete

Very true (IMHO)..

I do not agree with very much that the Assembly of God believes but I just want to say welcome to the forum.

The oops was because it sounded heavy and the guy is a newbie. No worries though. I was once contacted about a post. I had included the link but it was not so obvious. Its important that we act responsibly and I would rather know there was a problem before any copy write acts get enforced. I know that's why you guys are on the look out and I thank you too..

You are right Rabbio. See:- http://www.torahclass.com/other-studies/47/985-the-passover-problem-solved-by-tom-bradford

Very true (IMO).

The difference I have is as I said I do not believe the divisions are from Yahweh. The other thing is the differences are only as important as each individual wants to make them (IMO) and maybe there is a lesson in that.. The other thing as I have said before that the pit of fire is seen in Jewish circles as a spiritual confrontation with ones on nature. It is not eternal as the NT wishes to make it sound.. Remember this letter was for mainly for a Jewish audience and it has been my experience that we have often failed to understand what some of these things mean in their understanding and replaced with the churches guess work (IMO). Just a point on the topic of love. Coolhand has been the only one who has link you as a friend so far despite your attacks on his faith and God. Maybe that is worth noting too.

Okay, I am with you on that one- some do in my experience make excuses for some of the nasty bits of the book . The difference I have is that I do not believe that much of what is said to have happened actually happened or was really the will of Yahweh. lets take some verse from 1 John 4 and see how that matches your view of Yahweh. 1 John 4:7. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 and 1 John 4: 16-21 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

I never said they would not but it seems to me you have it in for the Jews and Christians and Muslims. Many do these good works because they feel inspired by their God but you appear to suggest that God would not have willed such things. I remain confused..

From what I understand the Jews did not believe was an eternal punishment. It was a time in which a person would be confronted by their failings and thus a spiritual fire and afterwards they would be returned to their families. I know you appear to want Christianity all sewn up as nothing but a cruel religion but for me that is just too narrow a view. In the UK and in many places in the world it is recognised that the first schools were set up by the Christians, most social care organizations were set up by the Christians and the most active out reach initiatives for the homeless and those with drug and alcohol problems on the street are still carried out by Christians. Is it not odd that if all Christians worshiped a cruel God and were cruel as you say that they should try to be so loving to those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances?

Heck! another earthquake today.

Did you read the link:- http://bible.org/art...available-today Some quotes:- "Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. " "Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?" He goes on to add that things had been added with no Greek scripts to draw from and many other changes and additions. Surely with this in mind, and your saying the King James Version is the most accurate then it appears to me we are saying we have no accurate bible or trustworthy edition or trustworthy source to draw from. ps// I have worn out a number of bibles in my time and I do not think it helped my sanity

So are you now saying God has not protected his word (as you see it)? It seems even some conservatives do not think the KJV is a good version. see:- http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

Not believing every word in the bible is spoken by God in person is not the same as being a none believer in that voice that speaks to the heart of a reader. As I mentioned earlier that just because Jesus may of not said those without sin cast the first stone and that this was a later addition to John's gospel does not take away any of the impact the story has (IMO). I thank Jesus for drawing my attention to the language of the spirit that supersedes that which is written in text. It would have been easy for me reading the Old Testament horrors and come to the conclusion that God is not loving, just, or a source of goodness and to miss so much if Jesus had not lived. If you ask me do I believe every word of the book is the word of God then I am a none believer, but if you ask me whether God spoke through the stories of Jesus and can change the heart of mine and others in a powerful way then I am a believer. Yes, of course 2 Peter agrees with Paul. I believe it was written to give support to the Paulian school of thought but not by Peter (IMO and others who maybe bible believers or not).One does not have to have your take on things. "The great majority of scholarship agrees that Peter could not have written this letter.[18] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this perspective without much discussion"[19] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."[20], as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."[21] Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author" From:- http://en.wikipedia....etrine_epistles

Spong on Paul. Spong on the bible. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=E8ieU1fVA-Q Spong on fundamentalism. Dan, Lets also not forget that outside of the conservative circles 2 Peter is thought to be a forgery. "The Second Epistle of Peter, usually referred to simply as Second Peter and often written 2 Peter, is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Saint Peter, but in modern times widely regarded as pseudonymous." and "Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD" (Peter was long dead by then) from:- http://en.wikipedia....pistle_of_Peter

I have a utube link of Spong talking about what he thinks of Paul. I will post it when I get home from my night shift. I admit when I first read Spong I felt very uneasy and at the same time very challenged, but it made more sense to me after a while. It was his writtings that got me onto other liberal sites and writtings. I am grateful for his challenge.

Just to qualify your statement. It is not just Paul. I do not believe the bible is the word of God. There are things that speak to the heart and I believe that is God speaking but there is much that is written that I think is just evil and tribal religion. Hence, I do not see the bible text as the word of God but that which is spoken to the heart. It is the heart that changes a person and not the text.

I have tried to stay close to the topic and the book "Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism" is not specifically about Paul but is a discussion on the bible as a whole. You say you have read the book and as such you should know that it is not specifically about Paul although chapter 8 does discuss him. I have tried to give you info when ever you have asked for it but it seems you do not not give me back anything but scorn in return. Where is your justification that Paul's words are that of God's? Where is your evidence for accepting Paul as the spokeman for God? I guess its because somone 2000 years ago wrote something and you have taken in whole. I have given you some of my reasons but is it discussed?No! All I get is you do not want to hear what I have to say and your leaving me with little point in replying to you in the future. I am not Spong and I have never professed to be. Much of what he says resonates with me, but if it does not for you, do I get upset? No. Have I mocked you on this topic? No. Have I got that from you? I believe so.

I read this book about four years ago and have read other books since. The main reason that I quote Spong is not that I some how worship him or feel I hang on his every word but that what he says resonates with my own conclusions. When we talk about Paul we are talking about the very first writings of the new testament and I believe the bedrock upon every other book included had to be validated by and if they did not comply then they were modified or dismissed as Gnostic. I believe you have asked me of the strongest argument from the book and you are asking me to reference it for you as you have referenced page 10. As I understand it you have started this topic on the book and now you want me to explain Spong's views on Paul and to leave out that which resonates for me and my views on the topic. Yet, I have to speak about what resonates with my conclusions on Paul because to say that such and such is the stronger argument then one has to be somewhat subjective on the topic. My view:- We have a man who had taken upon himself the killing of those who did not comply with his view of Judaism. we have a sketchy story of his conversion and suggests to me a guilty man. He did not visit the disciples right away but went according to the bible to Arabia for three years and then went to Jerusalem for 15 days and says he met Peter and James and saw no one else (Galatians 1:116-18). He then goes away for 14 year ad returns and falls out with Peter for what? We read Peter was still trying to keep his connections with Judaism. Sure it says he ate and behaved differently when visiting the homes of gentiles but I must point out so would I if I stayed at the home of a Jew. Even Paul talks about differing his arguments when he he is in the company of others (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). Now as I have pointed out that I believe his teachings were different from Jesus in that Jesus talked about the kingdom of God within and that which is to come and the beatitudes (Matt 5:1-16) seem to clearly say that by your fruits you will be known. Paul talks about being dead to the flesh, washing away ones sin with the blood of Christ and grace being freely given. All this suggests to me is that Paul differed from Jesus and his disciples who practiced as Jews. I believe Paul started the new faith and I do not see Jesus as promoting anything other than a liberal form of Judaism. I therefore argue that if Jesus spoke the word of God and his disciples followed that word then Paul was the outsider. Now Spong on Paul from the book Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism You say you have read the book and therefore you will note that the book is not about Paul per-se but takes a brief scan over the bible and argues how and the books of the bible came about. However, Spong does discuss Paul in Chapter 8 and suggests he was a torment man. Tormented by the nature of his flesh and desires. Paul mentions a number of times about the threat his members (personal members) have for him and how desires of the flesh can mislead and how God gives over people who give into these urges. Spong discusses Paul and how he tried to rationalize his urges that for him contradicted the law with his faith. Spong believes Paul was a gay man and death to the flesh and being reborn with grace is in his view the only option Paul had to resolve his torment of being a gay man who by the Jewish law should be stoned to death. We say death to the flesh but then again we read about the resurrected Jesus allowing Thomas to touch his wounds and his eating with the disciples. All of which describe a flesh of a person (IMO). So for me and I guess Spong, do not see Paul as speaking every word as dictated by God but as dictated by his own personal struggles with Judaism, and his faith, and his own physical being, and his relationship with God.

Amen