You are not logged in.
"Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?" <BR>Read this following story and note the miracle performed in from of the leaders and people of the time of Jesus, yet they still wanted a miracle. <BR> <BR>Here Jesus was using His creative power and not unlike the New Atheists and Secularists of today, they have declared there is no God, because they believe in evolution as the answer to man's existence and demise. <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Mark 8 <BR>Jesus Feeds the Four Thousand <BR> 1During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 2"I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance." <BR> 4His disciples answered, "But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?" <BR> <BR> 5"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. <BR> "Seven," they replied. <BR> <BR> 6He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. 7They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. 8The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 9About four thousand men were present. And having sent them away, 10he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha. <BR> <BR> 11The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." 13Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
from whom extraordinary belief is expected, <BR>extraordinary evidence should be presented. <BR> <BR>too bad the attitude still exists today that... <BR><font color="ff6000"> I tell you the truth, no sign will be given </font> <BR> <BR>just think how quickly the "work" could be finished if Jesus chose to come back and invest a coupla TV hrs split between Larry King, almost alive, to appeal to the left(behind), and on Beck for the Right-eous, then on Oprah to reach all the unemployed? and finally Algezera to set the Moslems straight.... <BR> <BR>but if He continues to keep that attitude that... <BR> <BR>"no sign will be given".... <BR>the "work" might continue to be set back, no? <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2337.jpg" alt="">
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
John, you missed the point, a sign was performed in front of their eyes multiplying the loaves and fishes, yet they still came asking for "another" sign. Would that have been good enough? Lazaraus from the dead, Centurion's daughter, man by the pool of Bethesda, etc. <BR> <BR>The current generation will not accepted transcendant miracles. It has to be something they can prove, including causation, or it didn't happen.
Offline
Bob, <BR> <BR>Isn't it 2 stories and not one? The first one is about a crown of followers, the other about Pharisees. I do not see a contradiction here. Maybe the Pharisees were not in the crowd, and simply wanted a private sign. <BR> <BR>I do see a contradiction between the Jesus of Matthew, who refuses to give any signs, and the Jesus of John, who hardly does anything but give signs. <BR> <BR>Mixing in evolution does not help at all. Should we become fact-deniers and say that evolution has not been happening? Should Christians be afraid of truth? Does evolution mean there is no God? <BR> <BR>People today would like a sign too. And if those in biblical times experienced so many, why aren't there any today? No resurrections, no angels, no supernatural feeding. Has God changed? Or maybe God has always been the same, and we were a little more naive than we are today when we imagined that God worked physical miracles? Maybe the only miracle there ever was is a miracle of love?
Offline
JAG, just remember what you and I want or expect is not necessarily the way God's mind works. That seems to be the problem with man looking at Biblical accounts. In the OT, the total taking out of an "evil" tribe or nation is interpreted by some modern day secularist, not as protection and obedience of God's people, but as brutal and cruelty, interesting the extremes of the views.
Offline
remember what you and I want or expect is not necessarily the way God's mind works. <BR> <BR>but...isn't it alleged that: <BR> <BR>1) God "created" us <BR>2) therefore He knows how we work, better than we know how He works <BR>3) He is allegedly omni-everything, <BR>knows everything, <BR>sees everything, <BR>understands everything <BR>4) Shouldn't He know how, and be able to 'adapt" to meet our needs better than we to his...???? <BR> <BR>if God wants us to love Him, and he wants to love us back, take care of us, and build mansions in heaven for us, why did he let the ancient hebrews say all those bad things about Him? and list hundreds of seemingly horrible, inhuman as well as unChristian things He did or caused? <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html" target="_blank">...(do NOT click here unless you want the list)...</a>
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Bob, <BR> <BR>I do not claim to know God's mind (and don't even claim that God has a "mind". <BR> <BR>However, there are absolutely to reasons not to treat wiping out the whole group of people as genocide. If you are able to justify this as "God's will", then just as easily you can justify any other attrocity. The Holocaust must have been God's will too. Just like hurricane Catrina or the Asian tsunami, or the civil war in Yugoslavia. It's simply God getting fed up with some people and wiping them out, isn't it? <BR>Are you really saying that executing all men, children and women who have had sex and keeping the virgins as sex slaves (as advocated by the Bible) is God's will? You may call me a secularist, but this is not the kind of God I would EVER worship - I'd rather burn in eternal hell (if there is one) for the right cause.
Offline
Radek, I have one word to say about what you wrote. <BR> <BR>AMEN.
Offline
so to rehab the Loving God we all used to know, isn't the best way to reinterpret the writings of the ancients as just their own misunderstanding of natural events which they described as supernatural? <BR> <BR>that might seem to remove a major stumbling block to "belief" and accepting a lot of "miracles" and impossible tales (the sun standing still...so that God's chosen people can kill more neighbors???) as edutainment for hebrew kids around the campfire. <BR> <BR>the question is: how much of Christianity can thereafter stand on its own? there are some good parts inho. <BR>as well as
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Arthur, <BR> <BR>Thanks for your kind words. <BR> <BR>John, <BR> <BR>At this stage in my life I would stay that the most essential elements of Christianity would survive your test. The other elements are most probably not worth preserving anyway.
Offline
JAG, thought this study might help understand God's workings in the OT. I will use parts of the study, and recommend the whole study in context: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>1. Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate? <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>There are a few situations in the OT in which something like this either (1) occurs or (2) is ordered: Sodom/Gomorrah, the Flood, and the Amalekites. And we will look at one "anti-Example" that might function as 'control data'--Ninevah. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems similar with the main exceptions that the cities were destroyed WITHOUT human agency, and that the vegetation was destroyed. God used some type of natural disaster to accomplish the destruction. <BR> <BR>There are several known facts about this situation which might prove relevant. S&G lived in a good land (Gen 13.10-12). Abraham saved their cities once, in a masterful military maneuver (Gen 14), after which Abraham 'witnessed' to them. They were exposed to/had access to the pure message of God through Melchizedek--the priest-king of Salem--(who probably led Abraham to the true knowledge of God!). Nonetheless, they were extremely evil people (and who were proud of it--Is 3.9: The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it.), and their crimes were both against God (Gen 13.13) and against people (Gen 18.20). Some twenty-five years after Abraham/Melky encounter, and several years after Lot had apparently been trying to 'moralize' the people (cf. Gen 19:9), the outcry to God is so great that He sends two angels to destroy the city and its environs (Gen 19.24ff). God had announced His intentions to Abraham in Gen 18, and agreed to spare the city if a few righteous could be found. Apparently, only Lot and his family (less than the required ten!) fit the description adequately, so the entire culture was judged and destroyed by God. The encounter involving Lot, the angels, and the men of the city is a vivid description of the evil of the city (Gen 19), and the NT refers to it as an example of judgment-future (2 Pet 2.6) with a special emphasis on sexual perversion (Jude 7). The fact that 'all the men of the city' were involved in the intended assault on Lot, indicates that the 'outcry' must have come from surrounding areas--hence, the 'international' scope of their evil. The destruction was immediate and total, including the surrounding cities and the vegetation (Gen 19.25), and is even used as an example by our Lord in Luke 17.29. <BR> <BR>It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household). <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html" target=_top>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>The Flood of Noah <BR> <BR>This was the largest annihilation/judgment to date (although it is very difficult to estimate with confidence the population at this time, especially given that 'violence' was at an extreme high and correspondingly would have made homicide rates horrendously high), and involved people, animals, and much vegetation (Gen 6-8). In a very incisive view of God's heart, we see the 'emotions' surrounding this apparent judgment: <BR> <BR>5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them." (Gen 6.5ff) <BR>We also see the rather violent nature of the crimes in Gen 6.13: <BR>So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. <BR>The story is familiar: (1) God decides to 'spare the innocent' again and warns Noah to build a boat for him and his household (apparently NOT so innocent); (2) the evil/violence of the people were both against God and against humanity (Gen 6.12) and was VERY EXTENSIVE ("filled"); (3) some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2); (4) Noah apparently "preached righteousness" to these people for AT LEAST a hundred years! (cf. 2 Pet 2.5); (5) this long period of preaching was an act of patience on God's part (I Pet 3.20);(6) in spite of the warnings, there were apparently no 'changed minds'. <BR>Let's note again that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 100 years) and at least a year of specific 'flood warnings'; (2) their crimes were violent and pervasive to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents would have undoubtedly died swiftly [the Flood was more of a sudden-event a la tidal waves, than a gradual rising water--cf. Gen 7.11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.]; (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household). <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation. <BR>This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f) <BR>The situation is thus: <BR> <BR> <BR><ol><li>The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel). <LI>They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob. <LI>They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God. <LI>As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel. <LI>Their first targets were the helpless: <blockquote>Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).</blockquote> <LI>Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to 'move away' from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to 'move away' themselves), and the impending attack by Saul--especially with the troop counts reported!--would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled--we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they 'lived to fight/raid again' in David's time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah's time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).</li></ol><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Sounds to me like God gave pretty fair warning in these situations. Those, in modern times, that site these examples, usually leave out the context showing the wickedness and the warnings.
Offline
For someone to "understand God's working" by recalling similar acts is only to rationalize what cannot be justified. <BR> <BR>Where, in the Flood story, is there any indication that they were warned by God or Noah of an impending flood? <BR> <BR>If you would kill your children to "teach them a lesson," then you are following God's plan for bad behavior?
Offline
How could the writer of 2 Peters have known what was not even mentioned in Genesis? Was he not "making it up"? <BR> <BR>Where did he warn the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah? Later re-telling of a story by additional details is considered lying in most other instances.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation. <BR>This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel <BR>go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.</font> <BR> <BR>oh, ya...that's fair!!! an omniscient, omnipowerful sky god says to kill the Amalekites...kill them all.... <BR> <BR>and why? <BR> <BR>because God had not protected the Israelites from the Amalekites attack earlier...and now in His love and protection, He says to kill them all now. <BR> <BR>either that, or the Israelites now feel powerful enuf to exact revenge for what their God had NOT helped them avoid earlier at the hands of the amalekites....so the Israelites use the Nazi excuse for massacring their neighbors... <BR>"we only did what we were told". <BR> <BR> <BR>(in the flood)..) <font color="0000ff">God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly</font> <BR> <BR>So God decides to 'spare the innocent' again and warns Noah to build a boat...but forgets to inform everyone else to far away to hear Noah's alleged preaching about the upcoming world wide flood, which, if in fact it was worldwide as claimed, would kill people all around the world...most of them unable to hear Noah's warnings.... <BR> <BR>so most of the people killed by this alleged masterpiece were innocent, or at least not given any opportunity to modify their behaviour. <BR> <BR>and the immorality which brought the whole thing on? space aliens were amalgamating with earths hot women.... <BR> <BR>how is that peoples fault? doesn't God control His space aliens? <BR> <BR>CEV) Genesis 6:1 <BR><font color="ff6000">More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. 3 Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years." 4 The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later. 5 The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6 He was very sorry that he had made them, 7 and he said, "I'll destroy every living creature on earth! I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I'm sorry I ever made them." </font> <BR> <BR>so our loving god is still a great guy since, even tho he killed innocent children and animals, he at least killed them quickly...gasping for air while drowning... <BR> <BR>by that logic, Hitlers Nazi executioners are to be likewise lauded for putting Jews out of their misery so quickly..only a few minutes of gasping for air in the brausebad....after the zyklon-B pills were dropped into the showers.... <BR> <BR>and like the ancient Jews, the Gestapo claimed that they too were only following orders..., and their motto also was <BR>"Gott mit uns" ("God is with us")
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
"How could the writer of 2 Peters have known what was not even mentioned in Genesis? Was he not "making it up"?" <BR> <BR>No he was not making it up. The knowledge that Gods servants come by is through revelation: <BR> <BR>Dan 2:22 He revealeth deep and secret things. <BR>Dan 2: 28 29 <BR> <BR>Amos 3:7 He revealeth His secret unto His servant.. <BR> <BR> <BR> Hbr 1:1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, <BR> Hbr 1:2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; <BR> <BR> Act 1:2 ....the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: <BR> Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: <BR> <BR> Gal 1:11,12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. <BR> Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. <BR> <BR> Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, <BR> Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: <BR> Eph 3:3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, <BR> Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) <BR> Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; <BR> <BR>1Cr 2:10 ..it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God 1Cr 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. <BR> 1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. <BR> 1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. <BR> 1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. <BR> <BR>2 Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, <BR> 2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: <BR> <BR>Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Offline
Conclusion: We should never question what is written in the Bible. It is inerrant, infallible, and we should not even question where it is Descriptive or Prescriptive.
Offline
Those who obey the Levitical and other laws given to the Israelites, including the Decalogue, are most selective in choosing the ones that are eternal, and those that were only for the Israelites during their early years. <BR> <BR>How is the selection determined? Adventists claim that the differentiation between clean and unclean meats is to be obeyed forever. Yet, how many today wear clothes with mixed fabrics, and how many obey the Levirate marriage demanded that a man take his brother's widow for a mate? <BR> <BR>How many are willing to stone their disobedient child? How many are ready with stones to kill a Sabbath-breaker or an adulterer? Were those merely <b>descriptive </b>or <b>prescriptive?</b> <BR> <BR>On what basis is it determined into which category these laws are chosen?
Offline
Well, Bob, thanks. Now we know beyond any doubt that God gave those wicked Jews almost 2,000 years before he decided to send down his messenger, Hitler, to orchestrate the Holocaust. What a loving and patient God after all! It must have felt sooo good to be God's tool in carrying out his orders! Obviously there we also some non- <BR>Jews in the death camps, but no doubt they just died instantly. <BR> <BR>On second though, however... somehow this theology does not seem mature enough to me. Your link seems to be typical fundamentalist propaganda. There is no attrocity that those people could not justify.
Offline
JAG, not so quick making Hitler one of God's chosen: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>The Mercy of God as Found in the Old Testament <BR> <BR>by Rich Deem <BR> <BR>According to Richard Dawkins, Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."1 Absent from any of Dawkins' description of God is His mercy. People tend to think of the God of the Old Testament as cruel and unforgiving, whereas the God of the New Testament is seen as the God of mercy, who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of the world. The Old Testament prophets were always warning the people about the wrath of God should they stray from the path of righteousness. However, what is usually ignored by atheists is God's mercy for those who did repent of doing evil. Yes, God judged many people groups, but not before warning them. <BR> <BR>...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Me thinks, JAG, you have been reading too much Dawkins.
Offline
In fact, Bob, I admit I have read nothing at all by Dawkins, though a lot bout him, mainly by conservative Christians. He must obviously mean a lot more to them then he does to me. <BR> <BR>I wonder if you ever hear of Marcion, an early Christian leader - he had the same opinion as Dawkins, and came to the conclusion that the OT God and the God of Jesus were totally different deities. <BR> <BR>If both Marcion and Dawkins were wrong, it is because the Hebrew Bible presents many, totally inconsistent visions of God. That's because it shows how the Hebrew religion grew out of a xenophobic, tribal cult to a much more open and universal religion. And all along, different sects presented different ideas about God. If you read the Pentateuch, for instance, the God of the Elohist source is very different from the one of the Jahwist source. They do not only do different things, but look different too!
Offline
About Marcion's views, since JAG brought it up, I'll report, you decide: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Marcionism is an Early Christian dualist belief system that originates in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[1] Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and Yahweh. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology (both are dualistic). <BR> <BR>Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge. Marcion was labeled as gnostic by Eusebius.[2] Marcion's canon consisted of eleven books: A gospel consisting of ten chapters from the Gospel of Luke: edited by Marcion (out of the original 24), and ten of Paul's epistles. All other epistles and gospels of the New Testament were rejected.[3] Paul's epistles enjoy a prominent position in the Marcionite canon, since Paul is credited with correctly transmitting the universality of Jesus' message. Other authors' epistles were rejected since they seemed to suggest that Jesus had simply come to found a new sect within broader Judaism. Religious tribalism of this sort seemed to echo Yahwehism, and was thus regarded as a corruption of the Heavenly Father's teaching. <BR> <BR>...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism</a> <BR> <BR>Sounds a lot like the Jeffersonian approach to the Bible, thin it out until it reflects what you want it to reflect. Eh???
Offline
And what of Gnosticism: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Gnosticism refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that the cosmos was created by an imperfect god, the demiurge with some of the supreme God's pneuma ; this being is frequently identified with the Abrahamic god, (as opposed to the Gospel according to the Hebrews) and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including Pleroma and Godhead.[1] Depictions of the demiurge—the term originates with Plato's Timaeus[2]—vary from being as an embodiment of evil, to being merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. Gnosticism was a dualistic religion, influenced by and influencing Hellenic philosophy, Judaism (see Notzrim), and Christianity;[3] however, by contrast, later strands of the movement, such as the Valentinians, held a monistic world-view.[4] This, along with the varying treatments of the demiurge, may be seen as indicative of the variety of positions held within the category. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism</a> <BR> <BR>Sounds like polytheism to me. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on December 21, 2009)
Offline
Isn't belief in the Trinity also polytheism? <BR>"Three Gods in One"?
Offline