Summations Only

And how does anyone know they are in communion with God, whatever that even means?How does one test to see if it really is the real God and not one made up in our heads?The point is when discussing the topic "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" the evidence is the actual words written in the different stories as well as which stories get selected to be included in a particular "Bible".If you then actually look at the evidence several things stand out.First, there is no such thing as "The Bible". Each of the major sects selects which stories should be included or excluded.Second, there is no such thing as "The God of the Bible" rather there are a whole bunch of different and mutually exclusive descriptions of a God, each identified as "The God" within the context of that story. The God of Genesis 1 is totally different than the God of Genesis 2&3 and this pattern continues from beginning to end.For the topic the only available evidence is the content of the stories themselves and it is there where we must look if we are to try to present an opinion on the subject.

These are valid questions. I will agree that the content is more important than the source, except to say I believe that if the source comes from a vain imagination attempting to redact the original intent of the text or whether the source is God in communion with the writers is arguably important. Again, as you say, the evidence is the content.And I will concede the point that we cannot know whether the words were inspired by God or not. That is an individual decision and belief. Nonsense. I understand what you are saying in historical context, but when I go to the store to buy one, I am buying a Bible...not a bunch of human interpretation and ulterior motive. Quit misdirecting the audience. Besides...we are discussing the content...whether revised, edited, or divinely inspired. I believe that the Bible was written by men, and was inspired by GOD...not through the vain imaginations of men. You are of course free to present a counterpoint. Point taken, and I disagree. The only God that matters is the one we have conceptualized in our minds and hearts. You are of course free to compare different writings and assume different gods, but the evidence you present is irrelevant. The only God we are interested in is the one YOU present. I challenged that God as being egotistical. You are free to ignore or even laugh at such a claim, but for now I agree with you---lets focus on the content of what is written. I would argue that our beliefs reflect the impact of the stories. The book essentially is about mans relationship with man, and mans attempts at relationship to God. This isnt all about evidence--unless you allow our opinions to be part of the record. Reason being that anything you or I write today is arguably as important as what was written---by other humans---in different cultures and times---back then.Why? Because we now live in this culture and this time and the interpretation of the stories and of the topic are true whether God said it or whether we say it and believe it.Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

Again, what does the evidence show? Are the Ethiopian Long Canon and the Ethiopian Short Canon and the Samaritan Orthodox Canon and the Protestant Western Canon and the Roman Catholic Canon and the Eastern Orthodox Canon all the same list of books?If it was inspired by God then why couldn't God even get the same books listed in all Bibles? Again Phat, you support my point. There is no God of the Bible rather only the God you made up.Based on what is written in the scripture there is no one god but rather a whole bunch of often mutually exclusive little gods.The only evidence there is for the topic "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" is the content of the various Bible stories. But Phat, all that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic which is "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" and the only evidence is what is actually written. Your beliefs are totally irrelevant to the topic unless you can support your beliefs by pointing to actual content in the stories and then they might be worthy of consideration; but you need to present evidence not simply state your beliefs.

Point taken. OK lets ignore the OT for a moment and focus on the New Testament. Would you agree that there is only one God consistently presented in Matthew-Revelation? If you see more than one, point it out. I of course will cooperate by reading what is written rather than simply arguing my own beliefs.

There are several different gods as well as several different Jesus characters in the New Testament. First there is the Jesus as marketed early on by Paul, a messianic figure who will return as conqueror during Paul's lifetime. As it became apparent that Jesus was not going to return as promised the characterization had to change from absolute to general, from specific to vague, with a total revision of what a Messiah would be.Then there is the Jesus character of the synoptic gospels and the entirely different Jesus character found in the Gospel of John. In particular the fourth Gospel is presented from an entirely different perspective than the synoptics, from the perspective of someone not dealing with Jesus the contemporary friend but rather the remembrances of someone from the authors past, not a human being but a demigod.The God character does not play much of a direct part in the New Testament and is relegated to either a character is tales Jesus relates to make a point (basically a recasting of one or more of the Old Testament god characters), a voice from off stage or a character in an apocalyptic tale.

We will need scripture to support your point. Does Jesus speak of more than one "God character"? Again...scripture would help.

Sheesh Phat, have you ever actually read the Bible?Read early Paul. Paul tells little about Jesus, no real history but just that the end is nigh; don't bother getting married because the world will end long before you could raise kids.This changes as Paul grows old to "No one knows when the end will be".Read the damn Bible Phat.The Synoptics deal with Jesus the human being. They include stuff like his birth, some early childhood tales but John presents a different Jesus, Jesus the LOGOS. John leaves out most of Jesus teachings like the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus temptation or Jesus transfiguration and presents "dialogs" where as in a Greek Play a character misunderstands what is said so that the Jesus character gets to expound on the lesson. John also describes multiple visits to Jerusalem and an earlier mission in Galilee.John also presents miracles is a totally different context that is found in the Synoptics. In the Synoptics Jesus performs miracles because it is what is need to solve a problem at the moment and almost always avoids taking credit or bragging about it while in John the miracles are performed as signs of Jesus divinity.John also presents miracles that should have been significant enough to make it into the Synoptics but that are somehow missing. The raising of Lazarus is a great example.Jesus uses quotes from the Old Testament primarily in the Synoptic Gospels and so the uses reflect the multiple characters found there. There is a difference as I mentioned between Jesus using references to Old Testament stories and the pretty much undefined and featureless God of the New Testament. As I mentioned above what we see of any God in the New Testament is mostly a voice from off stage "This is my son ..." that tells us little about God or (in the Synoptics) Jesus asking God to work through him or pointing out that God worked through others in the past.

All that I see here is jars interpretation of the Bible.Are you incapable of supporting your view with scripture so that we can question it, or are you simply assuming we are going to take your opinion of what scripture means as the truth?Besides...some of the viewers may not have read the Bible and would appreciate a scriptural discussion in this thread.

But I am responding to you and I have suggested many times it would help if you would actually read the Bible and stop trying to just pull shit out of context.You should know by now that I will not do as the Christian Cult of Ignorance does and just pull a verse from here and a verse from there as though that had any validity.If you need a link to John's Gospel and the Synoptics as well as the Epistles I will gladly provide them but don't expect me to stoop to the Christian Cult of Ignorance topics.I did provide both general and specific examples but it is YOUR responsibility to actually go read the material.And AbE: I imagine almost all of the viewers except the Biblical Christians will have actually read the Bible. It is only Biblical Christians that seem incapable of actually reading the stories.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

"Either the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Spirit of God or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man".If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear. (Heb. 11:3)Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142Or, he may declare, "it is all very well to say there was a huge explosion at what we call the beginning; but what about prior to that time?" In one confounding form or another, rest assured, the question is an often-repeated one.
Unfortunately, there is really no good answer to it....
In truth, in direct response to the question, all that can safely be said is that after the beginning things were different from what they were before. That's the best we can do; we will just have to leave it at that.143As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing﷓ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.Who can say that God is not everywhere else in the universe where He has created habitable planets raising up intelligent life by the same processes and for the same Divine Purpose that He has done so here on Earth? This is why we have not heard from these other civilizations.
What about the incarnation of God as a man?else must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice himself. (Heb. 9:26)How could this verse be true, if God is doing the same thing elsewhere in the universe? He only incarnated into the four﷓dimensional physical universe one time. Wouldn't the working out by God of His Divine Purpose elsewhere in the universe also require His incarnation elsewhere? Yes! Wouldn't this contradict the above verse? No!
According to the laws of our four﷓dimensional physical universe, God can incarnate on other worlds at other points in time and still have only incarnated from a spiritual universe into the physical universe only once. Besides, the reference in Hebrews 9:26 evidently applies only to our world, the Earth. But even if it is in reference to our physical universe, there is no contradiction. Thus, there is nothing scriptural to preclude the identical working out by God of His purpose through extraterrestrial life forms on other planets in the universe.
Incidentally, the reasons why the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not directly mentioned in the Bible are: First, we do not need to know; second, such knowledge would violate free will since it would be direct indication of knowledge that could not be obtained by objective means.AUTHOR’S NOTE:
If God is indeed consummating New Jerusalems elsewhere in the universe, then there will be evidence of the sudden emission of increased amounts of energy (seven-fold, mainly in the visible spectrum) emanating from a singular source. This could explain otherwise (scientifically speaking) inexplicable phenomena. Whether or not these phenomena are detectable with our current astronomical capabilities, I do not know.
Man, you search the physical universe in a vain quest for answers that cannot possibly fill your emptiness or satisfy your longing. These answers can only be found within you, and then only by turning back to your Creator and receiving Him. All else is truly vanity of vanities, temporal and finite.

Who told you this?

In the NT, there are books such as 1/2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians ( letters of Paul), 1/2 Peter are recognized by many scholars to be forgeries.
How does that factor in to god's word?

Hi, welcome home. Pull up a stump and set a spell.I think you need to check on those scholars and make sure you are not misquoting themIt's likely that !&2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians ( letters of Paul), 1&2 Peter may not have been written by the people they are attributed to but that is not the same as being forgeries as we use the term today.Actually most of the Bible is written by unknown writers.

I consider writing in somebody else's name and pretending it's them....forgery.
All those books fall in that category.
If the guys wanted to be anonymous, that is an option.
That wasn't what they choose to do. That, for me is purposeful deceit.
I think we can play games with the term but it seems forgery is what it is.Thanks for the welcome Jar. Your posts are superb and I respect your opinion on all things, in the time I've read EVC. I don't pretend to be at your knowledge level. And I've learned a lot from you. Thanks.

Yes, I do not doubt that you consider it forgery but that simply indicates ignorance of common practice of the period and of Talmudic Discourse. Your claim though was that scholars consider them forgeries which I really doubt.If you get a chance to read some of the Talmud which today is even available online that may help your understanding of the differences in terminology.In the earliest period of Talmudic documentation several key Rabbis became prominent. They very often approached passages from entirely different positions and arrived at entirely different conclusions and this is important to understand Jesus or the scripture or the attributions. The Talmudic discourse did not just cover "proof texts" but also laws and practices and legality and general morality and from contracts to announcing punishments and whether accepting a bowl of food through an open window on the Sabbath is work.These discussions continued long after the key Rabbis had died and it became traditional to present arguments in the style of one of those masters as attributed to that master. That was not considered forgery as long as it actually followed in the style and pattern of that Rabbi.There is an insertion in Mark, the so called "Long Ending" which was written by an unknown editor and inserted at an unknown time yet we still attribute it to Mark.It's not a matter of playing games or even deceit since what is being said is simply shorthand for "If Rabbi XZY had faced this question here is what he would have said"; "If Mark knew what I knew he would have added this".Probably the most important part of learning about the Talmud though is the discovery that there is almost always NO correct answer. The Jewish position was always one of multiple possible answers and differing points of view. This may be best symbolized by the story of the naming of Israel meaning "Struggles with God".What we see today of a group of Christian Cult of Ignorance Televangelist actors sitting and talking and agreeing and nodding would simply have never happened in a gathering of Rabbis.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title