I have studied the Bible at seminary level and, while I do not consider myself an expert, have enough knowledge to teach it competently--write adult curriculum on it actually. I have seen too many who a seminary education has destroyed their faith. But I have to believe such faith was based on what they had been taught and not based on what they had personally experienced. I had been taught all the fundamentalist concepts too, most of which I have now moved beyond. But God is real. I know it. I trust that. And I remain a Christian believer even though I accept that much of the Bible is not to be taken absolutely literally which is not to say that God is not in it. And the question remains. What is it that you, not a believer, draws you to threads like these? Why are you so determined to convince me that my faith is not real? Curious isn't it?
And my answer remains the same as well: "I am "Drawn" to threads like this because what is stated by your like often invites reaction.....Why do YOU do it? " And No one is trying to convince you of anything...most do not care. This is a debate forum and people debate.....drop the CPC.
What does "Seminary Level" even mean anyway. I assume you are either in seminary or not...just as "College Level" is merely a way of saying you did not go to college but you read books. I also read books...even a couple versions of the Bible(s).
Apparently there are three seminary schools in NM.. Trinity, Chaffer and another. I think one should differentiate between Moody Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary.. They are both driven by the Schofield heresy. Neither would be considered serious divinity schools.
If you believed that people were being told a lie and believing it, what would you do? Would you not argue on behalf of the truth?. At Christmas you celebrate the birth of Jesus as the Son of God. Why? There is nothing in the Nativity stories to confirm that if you study the times, background and Laws, both Jewish and Roman, by which they were governed. Look at the events in the gospel of whoever wrote Matthew. Jesus is already in Bethlehem, though Joseph's home and business was in Nazareth. Given the times Bethlehem was at least 5 days walk from Nazareth for a heavily pregnant young woman. With the state of the roads, a pony journey would most likely have brought on a roadside birth at any stumble. Joseph was in Bethlehem. Why? He almost certainly had no property there. It was a 1000 years since the death of David and Bethlehem had been devastated by the Babylonians. It's people had either been taken to Babylon or fled to Greek City states, Egypt and North Africa. (It also happened at the Assyrian invasion). Some may have returned, but many Jews remained in Babylon. The writer to Matthew quotes Micah as the place where Israels ruler will come from. This oes not mention his birthplace. Micah is all about Israel and is contemporary with Isaiah. Hezekiah is the ruler. What is the use of a prophecy made 700 years ahead. Prophecies are for the time. Would you be concerned it Prophecy declared the world would end in 2800. The writer then uses Hosea 11:1 to send Jesus to Egypt. But that is simply taking a verse of scripture out of context. The Book is again about Israel, as is the verse.. 'Matthew simply alters a name and duplicitly ignores the fact that the named person - Israel worships gods and offers incense to idols. Did Jesus do that? Simply taking verses out of scriptural c ontext renders the whole Bible invalid. Let's look at 'Lukes' story. Joseph is in Nazareth at work when Augustus calls all the world to be 'taxed' (censuses were for tax purposes on a persons property - not to count people). People were required to stay at home for the census. But Luke sends Joseph to Bethlehem because 'he was of the house and lineage of David'. The Romans didn't care less who Josephs ancestor was, they just wanted tax on the value of his home and business in Nazareth. David had been dead 1000 years as I've already gone through. As I said 'Matthew' sent Joseph to Egypt by misusing OT prophecy., supposedly to avoid Herod. However 'Luke' says that, having fulfilled Jewish customs Jesus circumcision and redemption at the Temple, and Mary's Jewish purification (40 days) they returned to Nazareth and stayed there until Jesus was presented at the Temple at 13. Rachel weeping for her children is another misappropriated scripture. Nothing to do with Herod. 'Matthew' uses his birth and nisquoted vrses to proclaim his divinity. Paul, in Romans 1' uses his resurrection. The trial and crucifixion are likewise mixed if you know Judaism. I have no doubt there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus who 'annoyed' the Sanhedrin by calling them hypocrites - which the people knew they were and loved him for this - so they had him crucified.
Not even close. The new testament features Paul's letters to the infant churches in far flung areas where gentiles are being converted to Christianity. The New Testament includes "Go ye into all the world to preach the gospel." Suggesting they are working on preaching to "beasts" is silly.
The Seven churches are Jewish communities that had been there hundreds of years. Saul/Paul converted them on his missionary journeys.
I come here because I believe there are strong elements of Christianity that are being given too little emphasis. From Matthew 25 starting at, say, verse 41 we find ourselves responsible for the care of others - the immigrants, the poor, those in prison, the "least among us". In fact, not seeing them is not an excuse - we are to search them out. And, we're not just responsible in a casual way, but as a way to lose one's gift of eternal salvation. We forget that Catholics and Protestants believe that one may lose their salvation in various ways. We hear a lot about what it takes to be saved, but we tend not to hear much about what it takes to be rejected.
Matthew 15:21-26 King James Version (KJV). 21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her ...
If you really studied the Bible with an open mind you would see the problems. You have a one track mind which refuses to accept you may be wrong. Much of the Bible is myth, secondhand stories adapted from earlier stories. Archaeology and History disprove much of the Bible while it confirms some. There is no inspired word. It waa written by men. Believe it or not there are some very wise men in THIS world.
True.. Jesus only came for the lost sheep of Israel.. which takes me to the latest from Finkelstein. Divided Kingdom, United Critics - Biblical Archaeology Society https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics The Forgotten Kingdom by Israel Finkelstein traces the development of the northern kingdom of Israel to an earlier time associated with the reign of King Saul. The award-winning work is critically and independently reviewed by William G. Dever and Aaron Burke.
Some of us just have the need to eliminate superstition wherever it occurs. And if you are content in your beliefs why do you have a need to participate in forums like this. Religion is faith and you will never convert logical thinkers so why bother.
In my opinion it is much more foolish to nitpick the scriptures to death and show how they couldn't be in order to destroy a person's faith than it is to accept that some scripture is just intended to describe something wonderful that happened whether or not we take it literally. No date for Christmas is established in the Bible and the Church much later--probably 4th Century-- chose December 25 in the west--some eastern churches chose January 6 for commemoration of that something wonderful that happened. For somebody supposedly trained in seminary and an expert in Bible, I would think you would have known that. Which is why I am not believing you.
I participate in these forums because the subject matter is of interest to me and I enjoy exchanging ideas and concepts with other Christians or those who are not Christian but still enjoy a discussion of the topic. I honestly can't fathom assuming the self-righteous authority to try to destroy a person's faith though no matter how much I disagree with him and her on the fine points. I don't understand that kind of mentality at all.
