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

John Shelby Spong. http://www.johnshelb...site/index.aspx http://en.wikipedia....hn_Shelby_Spong http://www.liberator...Mark/Spong.html http://www.brainyquo...elby_spong.html Although Spong is a liberal he did not invent the term "Liberal Christian" and he is not a lone voice in the field. Much that he says has been said before by other Liberal theologians. I would say that Spong's contribution has been in the highlighting of those views, building on them and living them. "Contributions to biblical hermeneutics The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding." http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity Liberal Christian theologians and authors Anglican and Protestant Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834), often called the "father of liberal theology," he claimed that religious experience was introspective, and that the truest understanding of God consisted of "a sense of absolute dependence". William Ellery Channing (1780–1842), pioneering liberal theologian in the USA, who criticized the doctrine of the Trinity and the strength of scriptural authority, in favor of more rationalistic and historical-critical beliefs. Unitarian. Charles Augustus Briggs (1841–1913) early advocate of modern Biblical criticism Henry Ward Beecher (1813–1887), US preacher who left behind the Calvinist orthodoxy of his famous father, the Reverend Lyman Beecher, to popularize liberal Christianity. Adolf von Harnack, (1851–1930), German theologian and church historian, promoted the Social Gospel. Charles Fillmore (1854–1948). Emerson-influenced Christian mystic and co-founder (with his wife, Myrtle Fillmore) of the Unity Church. Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878–1969), Baptist founding pastor of New York's Riverside Church in 1922. Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), German biblical scholar. Paul Tillich (1886–1965), synthesized Protestant Christian theology with existential philosophy Leslie Weatherhead (1893–1976), English preacher, and author of The Will of God and The Christian Agnostic Lloyd Geering (1918–), prominent New Zealand theologian. Paul Moore, Jr. (1919 - 2003), 13th Episcopal Bishop, New York Diocese John A.T. Robinson (1919–1983), Bishop of Woolwich, author of Honest to God. John Hick (b. 1922) British philosopher of religion and theologian. William Sloane Coffin (1924–2006), Senior Minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, and President of SANE/Freeze (now Peace Action). John Shelby Spong (1931–), Episcopal bishop and author. Richard Holloway (1933-), Bishop of Edinburgh 1986-2000. Keith Ward (b. 1938) British Anglican cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar. Matthew Fox (priest) (b. 1940) American Episcopalian priest and theologian. Marcus Borg (b. 1942) American biblical scholar and author. Scotty McLennan (b. 1948) Unitarian Universalist Christian Minister, Stanford University professor and author. Michael Dowd (b. 1958) Religious Naturalist theologian and Epic of Evolution evangelist. Douglas Ottati, Presbyterian theologian and author, former professor at Union-PSCE, current professor at Davidson College. Roman Catholic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), a French Jesuit, also trained as a paleontologist; works condemned by the Holy Office in 1962. The condemnation was formally reaffirmed in 1981 but many theologians still refer to his writings, including Pope Benedict XVI. Yves Congar (1904–1995), French Dominican ecumenical theologian. Edward Schillebeeckx, (1914–2009) Belgian Dominican theologian. Hans Küng, (b. 1928) Swiss theologian. Had his licence to teach Catholic theology revoked in 1979 because of his rejection of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, but retained his faculties to say the Mass. John Dominic Crossan, (b. 1934) ex-priest, New Testament scholar, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. Joan Chittister, (b. 1936) OSB, a lecturer and social psychologist. Leonardo Boff, (b. 1938) Brazilian, ex-Franciscan, ex-priest, co founder of Liberation theology. Others Thomas Jefferson, as author of the Jefferson Bible, which excised all the supernatural elements from the gospels. also from :- http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity I believe there is a coming Anglican/Episcopalian rift between liberal and conservative that I do not see that there is any way of avoiding. I know writers like Robert Van de Weyer has made some sensible suggestions (IMO) in his book the Anglican Quilt but as long as the church continues to shelve the problem or tries to continue to bury it then I believe the debate will deepen. See also:- http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7470297.stm