yesterday i got home and i realized i accidentally brought a necklace with a cross on it from my boyfriend's house.. it was in a regular brown paper bag i put some of my things in.
i was lying in bed last night thinking about it wondering if i should take it outside.
i was afraid the demons were going to invade my house.. i decided to leave my tv on all night because we all know the demons will not bother you if your light or tv is on.
Don't even think about reading the fortune cookie after eating Chinese.
I tried this once after eating at a Chinese restaurant with Witnesses. They freaked out, it was if they thought that I was Satan himself.
Next time Witness come to my door; I think I will offer them some old fortune cookies. I can see them slowly backing away now.
pseudo
matthew 24:5 .
5. for many shall come in my name, saying, i am christ; and shall 1deceive many.
that was written 2000 years ago.
<-------waiting for pseudochristos to wade on into this threadCraig
LOL @ ona BTW, I have a condition called wadophobia. It flares up while I'm near water. When I was in my early 30's I tried several times to wade through water, but each time I ended up walking on it instead. Unfortunately this always seemed to draw a large crowd. They keep trying to follow me everywhere I went. I constantly had to remind them that my name is pseudo, but they insisted on calling me xristos. Where in the world do these people get these strange ideas? I ran across this today, and remembered seeing this thread. I thought it might be appropriate.
In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety an the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus's Life of Apollonius. [1] http://bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/g-fictions.htm pseudo edited to added signature and link (they disappeared, kind of like that time in my early 30's and I was.... oh, never mind. Its a long story)
if god spoke to a man and told him to write down what he said, how are we to distinguish this writing from other people who say god spoke to them?
we know the human beings can lie about anything for any reason.
if a writing supposedly contains prophesy, some say it wasn't prophesy and was written after the fact.
Chap,
Christianity is based on the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. All the Pharisees or the Romans had to do was produce the body and Christianity would have been stopped in its tracks.
This statement is ridiculous.
By the time that the Christian movement became large enough for the Pharisees or Romans to notice, the body was long gone. Most of the writings were not produce until late in the first century at best. They were more likely produced early second century. They weren't accepted as canonical until the fourth century.
There is no way that the Pharisees or Romans would even care about an incoherent group of Jews with a few strange ideas.
The NT is presented as fact concerning Jesus and the Christian faith. These facts are meant to convince its readers that Jesus is the Christ and that the Christian faith is the only true religion. When skeptics start pointing out problems with these so-called facts, those who still want to believe will switch modes from reliance on facts to reliance on faith.
It seems pointless to continue the discussion. You're going to believe what you want.
pseudo
i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.
if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.
this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.
SS,
Its funny that you would bring up dreams while on the topic of the soul. I believe that it was dreams of the ancient people, in which dead loved ones appeared, that gave them the idea of a soul.
pseudo
i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.
if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.
this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.
SS,
LOL
Do you think I can get my SUV into heaven also?
pseudo
i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.
if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.
this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.
Brummie,
In a way, I can understand your point.
Dub theology concerning the soul has always bothered me.
If Man does not have a soul, this means that his thoughts and attitudes are physical. Even though thought is based on chemical and electrical reactions, these processes exist in a physical realm. In order to gain favor with their God, their thoughts must conform to a certain standard. In the end it is their physical condition that God is accepting or rejecting.
Does God really care about someone’s physical condition?
pseudo
i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.
if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.
this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.
With all the pets that I've had in the past 40 years, heaven would be more like hell.
I hope your wrong
pseudo
i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.
if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.
this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.
Ok, here's what I think about the ideas concerning the soul in the Bible.
The Hebrews initially did not believe that there was an immortal soul. Their original thoughts centered on the welfare of the tribe. As the tribe became more established, their thoughts naturally started to center more on the individuals.
Thoughts of individuals obtaining a resurrection eventually became popular; in part to rationalize the injustice of the wicked living a long and prosperous life, while the pious sometimes did not do as well.
In the time period between the OT and the NT, the Jews incorporated the Greek idea of an immortal soul. At the same time they retained many of their ideas concerning the resurrection. This lead to the confusion we currently call the New Testament.
The Rich Man and Lazarus story closely parallels many of the ideas in the non-canonical writings produced between the two Testaments. The thought that Abraham would receive the righteous in paradise (not really heaven, kind of a purgatory) is found in these writings. It was also believed that the one of the pleasures that the righteous would enjoy, would be the ability to observe the unrighteous suffer in torment, for they would both go to the same place but to different areas. A chasm would prevent them from crossing to the other area. In the end the righteous would be resurrected.
The dub claim that this is just a parable, just does not cut it. A parable uses a well known and understood concept to explain a new idea. These concepts of the afterlife were well known and were being used to explain something?
The canonical and non-canonical writings do not really provide a complete and coherent picture of these different ideas, but for some to say that the NT does not teach some concept of an immortal soul they must completely deny many of it’s scriptures. Yet the older idea of the resurrection is also there.
Personally, I would like to believe that we have a soul, but logically I cannot justify it with my belief in evolution. The point at which man or proto-man obtained a soul is problematic.
pseudo
: doesn't a whole heap of "bttt"s constitute spamming?.
not if it's used in "moderation!".
bttt.
bttt
I couldn't resist.
pseudo
if god spoke to a man and told him to write down what he said, how are we to distinguish this writing from other people who say god spoke to them?
we know the human beings can lie about anything for any reason.
if a writing supposedly contains prophesy, some say it wasn't prophesy and was written after the fact.
Chap,
If we do not set aside how we are here, the so called absurdities would not be absurd. Either nothing became something all by itself or something always existed. I see no other possibilities and either one of these is more absurd than any you mentioned. I do not remember Job saying that his wife was his sister.
Your statement above also suggests that God is absurd. Either he came from nothing or he always existed?
I believe that this should really be handled as a separate issue. I don’t have the answers to such questions, but I can examine the so-called inspired word of God and determine if it is significantly different than other ancient beliefs. In my opinion, it fails miserably. I’m more comfortable admitting that I don’t know where we came from, than believing stories with talking animals.
Sorry about the reference to Job. I meant to say Isaac. I should have been a little more careful while proofreading. Here are the references to this:
10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was sore in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12 and it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee. Gen 12:10-13 (ASV) 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister. And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah. Gen 20:2 (ASV) 9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife. And how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die because of her. Gen 26:9 (ASV)
If God created Adam and Eve and he told them how he did it, wouldn't it make sense that they would pass this information on to their children; same thing with Noah and the flood. So there was legend mixed in with truth in the time of Moses. God told Moses what was true. If there was nothing like what Moses wrote down in other cultures, wouldn't we say "where is the secular account?"
If a God could intervene in history, why wouldn’t he insure that the information he passed on to his creation would remain significantly superior to the other myths and legends of Man? Why has he stopped intervening in the affairs of Man? Science continues to produce answers, which reveal a universe that does not require a God, while this so-called ancient God does nothing to confirm his existence.
I would still like to believe in a God and that the Bible is God’s word, but now that I’ve explored the alternate theories that account for its origin, I will always notice the cracks behind the facade. At some levels I believe that Mankind has outgrown the Bible. It has been dissected beyond repair. At the same time, Mankind has not outgrown his need to pursue his spiritual nature.
I guess it all boils down to this simple question. How do you determine whether a text is inspired?
pseudo
