" How many trials took place before the crucifixion? ONE. An illegal nightime trial held by the Sanhedrin. The other appearances before Herod and Pilate were NOT trials. ------------Why did God send his Son into a land of many false gods? ------------God sent his SON (NOT HIMSELF) to pay a ransom, (JOHN 3:16) so that people could once again look forward to living life in perfection on earth, which Adam stole from his offspring when he sinned in the Garden of Eden. (Romans 5:12). ---------------If God is eternal, how could He die? God didn't die - his son JESUS died. God and Jesus are not the same. Nowhere, NOWHERE in the Bible does Jesus refer to himself as the Almighty God. Any twisting of the scriptures to make it appear that Jesus is God is a false religious teaching. Oh and you Trinitarians who try to use the scripture that says "I and the Father are ONE) - that doesn't not mean that they are the same person. It means they are one in purpose and thought. To say that they are the same person would mean that Jesus and his apostles are also the same person when he says he and his apostles are one. Read the context. Jesus ALWAYS refers to his father as being greater than him.------------How could Pontius Pilate give a death sentence to a man who had never done anything wrong, and one he personally acquitted three separate times? There was a Jewish tradition of releasing a person for the Sabbath. The Jews choose to release Barabbas and have Jesus impaled. Pilate did not "acquit" Jesus - there was no trial. He merely took note of the fact that Jesus was innocent. --------People please do not go to this false religious event. These people are hated by God and will die on his great day.
"

" amomoftwo, your interpretation is not consistent with the rest of the Scripture you quote from. "I and the Father are one" comes from John 10:30. You will see, immediately following, that his listeners were ready to stone him--they interpreted his words to mean he was claiming to be God (verse 33). Earlier, in chapter 8, Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I am." Again, his listeners prepared to stone him. You have to look at the context; you can't claim to believe one portion that's written and ignore the rest. If you read the scriptures and ignore your own religious preconceptions, you'll see that Jesus is claiming to be "I Am" or, in other words, the Jewish God. "

" VTucker
well said! "

" Actually, I meant the scriptures in John 15. Sorry. Lying trinitarians use those scriptures to boost their claim that Jesus is God. The one you refer to, again, simply means that Jesus and his father are one in thought and purpose. That is the biggest lie you trinitarians have been taught and claim that Jesus is God. That teaching originates from hundreds of years ago when the Catholic church was trying to convert pagans. Do some research and you'll see the truth. I believe the whole Bible, a Bible that does not teach that Jesus is God. That is a false religious teaching. Jesus never referred to himself as "God Almighty". Yes, Jesus was in existence during Abraham's time - he was God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, still living in heaven before being sent to earth to die for us. Poor, pathetic trinitarian. You've been lied to your whole life, and now you will have to suffer the consequences when Jesus arrives to execute his Father's vengeance on people like you. Close minded? Mean spirited? If you call Bible truth such then perhaps I am. People, do not listen to these liars or you will die along with them. "

" Oh, for Pete's sake. It's the war of the nonsense peddlers. "

" Again, "Before Abraham was, I AM." His listeners understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. If they'd interpreted his words to mean only that he was "one with God in thought and purpose" would they have reacted with such animosity? Probably not. If Jesus' listeners concluded he was claiming to be God, how can we do otherwise? It is clear and follows from the reading; maybe you don't like the obvious conclusion, but you cannot claim to believe Scripture and discount it. "

" Also--again, I understand that you claim to believe in the Bible and will accept what it says--in John 20:28, Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." If Thomas were mistaken about something that important, you'd think Jesus would have corrected him. Instead, he says, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." In other Gospel accounts, Jesus willingly accepts worship. You know, momoftwo, those who believe Jesus claimed to be God have actual scripture to cite for support. You have only interpretations from your own religious tradition; not only that, but you seem to ignore what is plainly written. Read it as it is, not through the lenses of your preconceptions. "

" *sleepy* "

" You know, ladies, there's a whole, real, shining world out there outside your book of ancient Hebrew superstitions. You might try looking at it sometime and breathing its air, instead of keeping your heads stuck inside these sad, old myths that hide your fear of death. "

" Good morning, Question. I'm not afraid of death and am not sure if most people are, especially those who believe in a life beyond this one. I think it's the process of getting there, which is often painful and prolonged, that people tend to have anxiety about. "

" "I'm not afraid of death and am not sure if most people are, especially those who believe in a life beyond this one."
----
I do suspect you aren't afraid, V. But I would suggest that the vast majority of people who "believe in a life beyond this one" are, in fact, so terrified of death that they flatly refuse to believe it exists for them, despite the rather overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "

" You have to forgive the question, folks. He is under the illusion that he is the only one that knows anything and if you don't agree with him, you are wrong and totally ignorant. John Kay of Steppenwolf wrote a song that applies to him. The song is called Tighten Up Your Wig. One line in it says "Your mind is so narrow and it's no surprise, if you fell on a pin well you'd be blind in both eyes. "

" The debate can be resolved by two verses of scripture. John chapter 1:1 states that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. In John chapter 1:14 it states that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word who is God is Jesus. It's as clear as the noise on my face. The problem with the people who believe in the 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 is that there is a Father, there is a Son, and there is the Holy Ghost and all three are God. It's really not that hard to figure out. I'm not my dad, not my mom but we are all in the same family and have the same bloodline. Another thing that the Oneness either deny or ignore is that Jesus paid the price once and for all meaning that he will still be the same Jesus when we see him in Heaven. He will not be the Spirit Jesus he will be the one whom the disciples saw after the resurrection. Let's see how confused we all are now. "

" “It is fear that first brought gods into the world.”
— Petronius "

" Ah, my friend Mr. Question . . . like you, I have been just waiting until the next time this topic came up but for different reasons than yours. You have to be just thrilled that we’re into a scripture war by post #2 because it plays right into your hand and goes a long way to underwrite your beliefs. Please understand that I am in no way condemning you or what you believe, nor am I being a smart you-know-what with you. I hope by now you know ol’ Tooner here has a great deal of respect for you and your right to your opinion.

The saddest thing about that is here’s Tooner who is a Bible-believing born again Christian who loves God and Jesus (and you, too by the way) taking sides with you – a person’s whose religious beliefs are diametrically opposite of mine – on a thread like this. You see, postings like this disgust me as much – even probably more – than they do you. However, the disgust is for different reasons. I’m just disgusted with how Christian people treat each other and play right into your hand.

And here’s what I mean . . . . AMOMOFTWO starts out explaining some details and answering some of the questions the original article asks (by the way, as rhetorical questions, not questions that beg answers on this forum) and doing a pretty good job of it at that. Then right when I think we’re gonna have someone add some solid Christian beliefs, she goes into “you trinitarians” like the word “you” is a euphemism for “pond scum” and goes on to explain why Trinitarians are under false teaching. Then she calls this program a “. . . false religious event.” If that’s not bad enough, she pulls a page from GodHatesFags-dot-com and states “These people are hated by God and will die on his great day.”

But that’s not enough! Nooooooo . . . . . she has to add even more credibility to the “Christians are Hypocrites” argument by saying things like “Lying trinitarians”, “That is the biggest lie you trinitarians have been taught . . . “ (there’s that reference to pond scum again), and “Poor, pathetic trinitarian”. (I’m not sure if the word “Trinitarian” is not capitalized in her letter due to poor grammar or if she has so little respect for Trinitarians that she refuses to acknowledge Trinitarianism just might be a viable entity.)

Oh my God (pun clearly intended), she’s not done! Then it’s on to the doom those misguided, ignorant people will suffer at God’s hands through His vengeance! I’m exhausted even reading about it.

So, AMOMOFTWO, I cannot express the depth of my gratitude to you for being a witness in Judea, Samaria and all the world by exhibiting all nine fruit of the spirit to everyone who reads this. It’s obvious you take the “love thy neighbor as thyself” part of the Great Commandment to heart. I’m pleased to see that if you have a disagreement with a fellow Christian that you go to them in private as in Matthew 18:15.

Whether you’re a Trinitarian or a Unitarian or an octogenarian or Marian the Librarian has no bearing on whether or not you enter heaven. Whether you believe in a pre-tribulation, a mid-tribulation or a post-tribulation rapture is completely meaningless to your kingdom-worthiness. Only three things matter. Three. Un, deux, trios. That’s it. All else is debate fodder.

People who present the Gospel in a program such as this are NOT hated by God. Do you know what God hates? He hates division in His church. Moreover, he hates divisiveness and divisive people. People who attend such a program aren’t going to “die on His great day.” Do you know what people who attend such a program just might do? They might just commit their life to Christ – or even re-commit their life or it might be that a seed gets planted. Rock on, Mt. Zion!!!!!

Now a word to our non-Christian friends . . . what’s Mattooner@Heart been preaching on these threads for so long? Here’s prima facie evidence right here. PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY BY THE ACTIONS OR WORDS OF CHRISTIANS!!!!!

My sincere apologies to our non-Christian friends for taking this bandwidth to chastise someone but sometimes you just gotta do what you just gotta do. I’m sorry you had to see this but I’m sorrier you had to read some of the stuff I pointed out.

Just to avoid any hints of PERSONAL gain in this, most of you know I live in Minnesota so I have no vested interest in Mt. Zion General Baptist Church other than to thank them for going into all the world and preaching the Gospel.

Please, Christians . . . remember . . . non-Christians are judging our Christ by what you put on here. A little love here couldn’t hurt.

Ok Question . . . . your turn.
"

" “I and the Father Are One”---------------The churches often cite John 10:30 to try to support the Trinity, although no mention is made of any third person in that verse. There Jesus said: “I and the Father are one.” But did Jesus mean that he was God Almighty himself, just in a different form? No, that could not be since Jesus ALWAYS said that he was God’s Son, inferior to Him and in subjection to Him. What, then, did Jesus mean at John 10:30?-----------------Jesus meant that he was one in thought and purpose with his Father. This can be seen at John 17:21, 22, where Jesus prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us . . . that they may be one just as we are one.” Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become one person? No, he was praying that they would be in unity, of the same mind and purpose, just as Jesus and God were.--------------The same idea is expressed at 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul states that Christians ‘should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among them, but that they should be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.’ So when Jesus said that he and his Father were one, he did not mean that they were the same person, just as when he said that his disciples should become one he did not mean that they were the same person. "

" What about John 1:1, which says in the King James Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”? John 1:14 tells us that “the Word became flesh and resided among us.” Christendom claims that this “Word” (Greek, lo′gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was God Almighty himself. Yet, notice that even in the King James Version John 1:1 says “the Word was with God.” Someone who is with another person is not the same as that other person. So even from this translation, two distinct personalities are shown. Also, no third person of any Trinity is mentioned at all.------------------------As for the King James Version’s saying in the latter part of John 1:1 that the “Word was God,” other translations say something different. Some are as follows:--------------------1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.----------------------1864: “and a god was the Word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.-----------------1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.---------------------1935: “the Logos was divine.” A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York.---------------1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.---------------
1978: “and godlike sort was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.-------------1979: “and a god was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany. "

" Do such renderings agree with the grammatical construction of John 1:1 in the Greek language? Yes, they do. At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first occurrence refers to almighty God, with whom the Word was—“and the Word [lo′gos] was with God [a form of the·os′].” This first the·os′ is preceded by a form of the Greek definite article ho. The noun the·os′ with the definite article ho in front of it points to a distinct identity, in this case almighty God—“and the Word was with [the] God.”----------------But in the latter part of John 1:1, such translations as listed previously render the second the·os′ (a predicate noun) as “divine” or “a god” instead of “God.” Why? Because the second the·os′ is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and without the definite article ho in Greek. In this verse, such a sentence construction points to a characteristic or quality of the subject. It highlights the nature of the Word, that he was “divine,” “a god,” but not the almighty God. This is in harmony with the many scriptures that show that “the Word” was God’s spokesman, sent to earth by God. As John 1:18 states: “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god [the Son created in heaven by almighty God] who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has [come to earth as the man Jesus and] explained him [almighty God].”-----------------There are many other Bible verses where those who translate from the Greek into another language insert the article “a” before the predicate noun although there is no article in the Greek text. This insertion of the article in the translation brings out the characteristic or quality of the noun. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says, “they supposed it had been a spirit” (Greek, phan′ta·sma). A correct translation renders the phrase, “They thought: ‘It is an apparition!’” In the same way, the correct translation of John 1:1 shows that the Word was not “God,” but “a god.” (LITTLE G)--------------------Two similar examples are found at John chapter 8, verse 44. There Jesus, speaking of the Devil, says: “That one was a manslayer when he began . . . He is a liar and the father of the lie.” Similar to John 1:1, in the original Greek the predicate noun in both these expressions (“manslayer,” “liar”) precedes the verb and has no definite article. In each case, a quality or characteristic of the Devil is being described and in many modern language translations, it is necessary to insert the indefinite article (“a”) in order to convey this. Thus, the King James Version renders these expressions, “He was a murderer . . . he is a liar and the father of it.”—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 21; 12:6. "

" “My Lord and My God”-------------------------Trinitarians also cite John 20:28 to support their claims. There Thomas said to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” As shown above, there is no objection to Thomas’ referring to Jesus as a god. Such would be in harmony with the fact that Jesus, in his prehuman existence, certainly was a god, that is, a powerful, divine person. And he certainly has been that since his death and resurrection to heavenly life. Jesus even quoted from the Psalms to show that powerful humans were addressed as “gods.” (Psalm 82:1-6; John 10:34, 35) The apostle Paul noted that there were “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords.’” (1 Corinthians 8:5) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things.”—2 Corinthians 4:4.--------------------Christ occupies a position far higher than imperfect men, or Satan. If such can be referred to as “gods,” surely Jesus can be, and was, referred to as a god. Because of his unique position in relation to God, Jesus is “the only-begotten god” (John 1:18), a “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6), and “a god” (John 1:1). So there was nothing improper about Thomas’ referring to Jesus in that way. Thomas was saying that Jesus was a god to him, a divine, powerful one. But he was not saying that Jesus was Jehovah, which is why Thomas said, “my” God and not “the” God.----------------------Just three verses later, at John 20:31, the Bible states: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” All doubt as to what Thomas may have meant is dispelled here. The Bible writer John clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God, not almighty God himself. "

" Not Equal to God----------------------------Another scripture the churches use is John 5:18. It says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because “he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” Who was saying that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He clears this up in the very next verse (19) by stating: “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” So Jesus did not claim that he was almighty God or equal to Him. He was showing the Jews that they were mistaken, that he was not God, but that he was the Son of God, and as God’s spokesman, he could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine the almighty God of the universe saying that he could do nothing of his own initiative? So the Jews made a charge, and Jesus refuted it.-------------------------Thus, from the testimony of God in his own inspired Word, from the testimony of Jesus, and from the testimony of the disciples of Jesus, the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that almighty God and Jesus Christ are two separate personalities, Father and Son. That evidence also clearly shows that the holy spirit is not the third person of any Trinity but God’s active force. It is futile to take scriptures out of context or to try twisting them to support the Trinity. Any such scriptures must be harmonized with the rest of the Bible’s clear testimony. "

" Why Did the Trinity Develop?-----------The Trinity has pagan roots. It is not a Bible teaching, but it was adopted by Christendom in the fourth century. However, long before that, there were trinities in ancient Babylon, Egypt, and other places. Christendom thus incorporated a pagan concept into its teachings. This was instigated by Roman emperor Constantine, who was not interested in the truth about this matter but wanted to solidify his empire made up of pagans and apostate Christians. Far from being a development of a Christian teaching, the Trinity was evidence that Christendom had apostatized from the teachings of Christ and had adopted pagan teachings instead.-----------------Why would such a doctrine develop? Certainly, God’s interests are not served by making Him, His Son, and His holy spirit confusing and mysterious. And it does not serve the interests of people to be confused. Instead, the more people become confused about God and his purposes, the better it suits Satan the Devil, God’s opposer, the ‘god of this world,’ who works to ‘blind the minds of unbelievers.’ (2 Corinthians 4:4) Since such a doctrine makes it appear that only theologians can understand Bible teachings, it also suits the religious leaders of Christendom. This helps them to maintain their hold on the common people.--------------------------Yet, the truth about this matter is so simple that a child can understand it. A little boy knows that he is not the same as his father but that they are two separate individuals. Similarly, when the Bible says that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, that is what it means. That is the simple truth, while the Trinity doctrine is not. It is a lie. So it must originate with “the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Revelation 12:9) But the simple, refreshing truths about God, his Son, Jesus Christ, and God’s powerful holy spirit free people from bondage to false teachings rooted in paganism and authored by Satan. As Jesus said to sincere truth seekers: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) Taking in accurate knowledge of liberating truths, as well as acting on them, “means everlasting life.”—John 17:3.
"

" zzzzzzz "

" In response to your posts, it sounds as if you ("amomoftwo" and "the truth") are Jehovah's witnesses. If you google in any of the key phrases you've mentioned here, along with Jehovah's witnesses, it isn't difficult to find material that challenges your erroneous interpretations. Likewise, the scripture translations you refer to are not taken seriously by Christian scholars. If you take the time to look into this, you will see why. I have time to point out only one mistake you made, that of stating that the idea of the trinity did not come into being until the 4th century. It is actually referred to as early as 125 AD in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. "

" C'mon Rotty . . . wake up and join in! This thread needs a little spicing up! "

" Oh, "the truth," Thomas would never worship Jesus as "a god." That interpretation is completely inconsistent with the monotheism of the Jews. Your references to Psalm 82 must be taken in context, both in the O.T. and when Jesus refers to it in the N.T. Jesus’ point here is to show that since the Scriptures apply the term "gods" to individuals who represent God without this being blasphemous then the Jews cannot charge Jesus with blasphemy for calling or making himself God; especially when Jesus does works to prove that he is God’s eternal Son, precisely the point Jesus makes in the conclusion of the chapter. Further, you mention I Corinthians 8:5; Paul is simply referring to pagan gods, not stating that there really is more than one god. A Jew would not believe in multiple gods! Clearly, and you repeatedly tend to ignore this--Jesus' listeners obviously thought he was claiming to be divine. More info about some of the issues you brought up can be found at http://www.gospelway.com/god/jesus_claims.php. Also, typing some of the translations you mentioned into a search engine will reveal the bias of those translations. Often, they are written to support a particular theology. Reputable translations have scholarship that crosses "party lines." Anyway, I hope you take the time to do it! "

" Oh, Rotty, c'mon! What's better than a good religious debate? Cigarettes? Politics? "

" I expect someone to be passing the plate any minute now. Wow, the thumpers are getting fired up again. I think Rotty's last post (4:18 PM) speaks for a lot of us. "

" Boy, I thought I had a pretty decent post going on but it kinda got buried there with The Truth's tome. "

" Sleeeeppppyyy.... "

" Hey Tooner! I thought your post was excellant! Right on Tooner! God Bless Ya! "

" Just for M@H. My one & only contribution.

A few minutes before the services started, the townspeople were sitting in their pews and talking. Suddenly, Satan appeared at the front of the church. Everyone started screaming and running for the front entrance, trampling each other in a frantic effort to get away from evil incarnate.

Soon everyone had exited the church except for one elderly gentleman who sat calmly in his pew without moving, seeming oblivious to the fact that God’s ultimate enemy was in his presence. So Satan walked up to the old man and said, “Don’t you know who I am?”

The man replied, “Yep, sure do.”

“Aren’t you afraid of me?” Satan asked.

“Nope, sure ain’t,” said the man.

“Don’t you realize I can kill you with a word?” asked Satan.

“Don’t doubt it for a minute,” returned the old man, in an even tone.

“Did you know that I could cause you profound, horrifying, physical AGONY… for all eternity?” persisted Satan.

“Yep,” was the calm reply.

“And you’re still not afraid?” asked Satan.


“Nope.” More than a little perturbed, Satan asked, “Well, why aren’t you afraid of me?”

The man calmly replied, “Been married to your sister for over 48 years.” "

" M@H, nice use of "love thy neighbor as thyself." I would add that I don't believe God will condemn us because of differences in doctrine -- if he did, just which of the multitude of denominations is the "right" one? I'm a bit of a radical Christian in that I don't believe God condemns Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., but that He speaks to us through many avenues, but that's for another day/another thread I should suppose. I also agree with a couple of other things from your post -- the emphasis on LOVE, not hate and divisiveness, and that people certainly shouldn't judge Christianity by the behavior of Christians. But the sad reality is that they do, so the appeal for us to do a lot more "loving our neighbors" is so important. And to Rotty, I loved the joke! "

" Rotty: Now just PREACH IT, brother! "

" Hahaha :-) Rotty!!!
The man could have just as easily said....satan, In The Name Of Jesus, I Command you, BE GONE! And satan would have disappeared just as his wife did 47 years earlier!! :-) "

" "Only three things matter. Three. Un, deux, trios. That’s it. All else is debate fodder."

All right, Tooner, when are you going to lay out the three things that matter? Basically, I agree with what you've posted, but you have to admit that chewing over the "debate fodder" is kind of fun. Except for those who fall asleep reading it, of course. You know, people who have been reading here awhile are familiar with amomoftwo, The Truth, and one or two others who apparently are related or attend the same church. I believe this "day of the Lord" business is posted initially out of concern for other people, but then lapses into defensiveness when others challenge these posts. There appears to be a great deal of fear--what of, I'm not sure, but it seems to involve believing differently from what's expected. "

" VTucker: I think you really do know these, but here are the three things that matter:

1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. (Acts 16:31)
2. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. (Mark 12:30)
3. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31)

And here’s a bonus for ya: “There is no commandment greater than these” op. cit.

That’s it. Three things. Couldn’t be simpler but most of us just have to complicate things by arguing doctrine until we finally make a fool of ourselves and prove the non-Christians are right – we’re hypocrites.

By the way . . . I’m sure you know that the word “denomination” appears nowhere in the Bible.
"

" VTucker: I think you really do know these, but here are the three things that matter:

1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. (Acts 16:31)
2. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. (Mark 12:30)
3. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31)

And here’s a bonus for ya: “There is no commandment greater than these” op. cit.

That’s it. Three things. Couldn’t be simpler but most of us just have to complicate things by arguing doctrine until we finally make a fool of ourselves and prove the non-Christians are right – we’re hypocrites.

By the way . . . I’m sure you know that the word “denomination” appears nowhere in the Bible.
"

" M@H, perhaps you should word that, "These are the three things that matter TO ME." What about, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved?" Or, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"? Denominations exist sometimes because people understand the Bible differently; in other words, your three things that matter may not be the same as my three things. Denominations may also exist because of different worship personalities and preferences. Differences aren't bad; unity is NOT uniformity. Problems occur when individuals or denominations claim their way is the right way, and that anyone/anything in disagreement is under condemnation. I have another question for you, Tooner; when you say, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, what do you mean? If doctrine doesn't matter, is it equally okay if we believe on Jesus as a god, Jesus as God, Jesus as prophet, or Jesus as Avatar? "

" What’s the difference between “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.“ and “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”? Believing on Christ and believing He was raised from the dead are the same thing. Read what I just wrote carefully . . . believing IN Christ and believing ON Christ are different beliefs.

“Repent and be baptized” is another very good one as well – there’s no doubt. But it is not a commandment like #2 and #3 of what I cited are, it was not Jesus who said it (I know, we can debate that one back and forth so I’ll concede the small point if needed) and Peter said to be baptized NOT to be saved, but to receive the Holy Spirit.

I also certainly understand the differences among the various denominations and how those differences come about. I’ll also agree that differences aren’t a bad thing and unity is NOT uniformity. Those are very good points. I’d never say that because my church uses oyster crackers and grape juice for communion and yours uses bread and wine that we have a real problem. I’d never say my church sings hymns and your church uses guitars and drums that you’re going to hell by buying in to the devil’s worship – which by the way I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT anyway. I’d never say the way I worship is the only way and even if I were to say that, I wouldn’t mean that if you disagreed that you were under condemnation and I apologize if that position came across.

And I admit I played a little fast and loose with the “doctrine doesn’t matter” thing because the three things I cited could be considered as doctrine and therefore would contradict what I was trying to say. I should have said AFTER three things, little else matters. Again, I apologize for any concern over that.

Finally, to believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ is to believe that He is exactly who He said He is. I know by stating that there are only three things that I oversimplify to a certain extent, but my point is that doctrinal beliefs don’t mean a heck of a lot in the grand scheme of salvation. And my overriding point was that AMOMOFTWO was way out of line and way off the mark to make some of the outrageous comments she made.
"

" So I guess John 1:1 did not bring any light to the subject. Instead it brought the Greek scholars out of the closet. How sad it is that Jesus only prayer for us was that we would be one and all we can do is argue if he is one.Whether we realize it or not Satan is behind every biblical argument. His purpsoe to is to take our focus off the real purpose and that is reaching people for Jesus. Deep thoughts indeed. "

" The Christians I see on TV these days all say they believe in the death penalty and the use of torture. Is that what all you Christians believe? "

" deepthoughts: I'm pretty sure you weren't talking about me when you said "Greek Scholars". The only thing I know about Greek is Gyros sandwiches and my old college fraternity.

I hope you weren't thinking I said John 1:1 was of no significance because that's not what I said nor what I meant to say. I was trying to say that we tend to make Christianity so complex and so involved and so difficult that people get confused easily. All I was trying to say was being a Christian was not difficult to do. Maintaining a Christian attitude and lifestyle is slightly different, but Christianity is not a bunch of thee's and thou's - it's Jesus, love God, love your neighber. That's all. "

" Oh, and I forgot the fourth one: Don't misspell words. That's "neighbor". "

" My two cents' worth: I am always leery of others who state with such certainty that someone else is going to hell. I figure it's up to God to sort out who's going where, and I have enough on my hands to tend to my own spiritual salvation -- Lord knows (pun intended) that I'm a sinner, and that it's a full-time job to repent for my sends and try not to repeat them. It doesn't leave me with time to go around condemning others to hell, if I'm dedicating myself fully to working on my own salvation. "

" Huge typo (forgive me) -- of course, that should say "repent for my sins." But since I "sent" that message without proofreading, I guess I need to "repent for my sends," too. "

" deep thoughts, what John 1:1 means depends on who's interpreting it. It means one thing to those who believe as "the truth" and "amomoftwo", and another thing to believers in a more orthodox theology. Can you accept a Jehovah's Witness' take on John 1:1 as you accept your own? Is that what you mean by being one? Would people of differing viewpoints be welcome at your church? Or does being "one" mean agreeing with what you believe and not voicing dissent? Anyway, if I were new to Christianity, I would certainly want to know why different interpretations exist and why different "camps" disagree. To stand around and pretend as if we're all in complete agreement on everything is dishonest, not to mention hypocritical. People are eventually going to find out the truth. "

" **His purpsoe to is to take our focus off the real purpose and that is reaching people for Jesus***


how about reaching people for the Dalai Lama? "

" "AMOMOFTWO was way out of line and way off the mark to make some of the outrageous comments she made."

M@H, why didn't you just say that to begin with? In fact, you could have written directly to her. Instead, you spent five paragraphs shaming this woman for what she said (which I agree was inappropriate and inflammatory). Initially you posted to Question, but you were actually addressing her. In the final paragraph, where you did finally address her personally, you added the rather sarcastic comment about the depth of your gratitude for her "exhibiting all nine fruits of the spirit."

Whether you intended it or not, this came across as abusive. Your writing is not all that different from hers; she attempts to control religious thought via threats about "the Lord's great day" while you assert control by making sarcastic, "shame on you" type statements. Actually, you shamed her for posting in the first place (where you chided her for not doing the Matthew 18 thing). What would happen if people could stop the posturing, drop all the shaming and controlling statements, and honestly just say what they think and believe? "

" Repent for my sends--ha, ha! There's a great spiritual truth, and no need to apologize, either. That's the best post on this thread, IMO. "

" "All I was trying to say was being a Christian was not difficult to do. Maintaining a Christian attitude and lifestyle is slightly different, but Christianity is not a bunch of thee's and thou's - it's Jesus, love God, love your neighbor. That's all. "
----
I thought Christianity meant trying to be like Jesus, which I think would be tremendously difficult to do. Even the three things you mention, if practiced "religiously," would be pretty hard to do. Some neighbors are awfully unlovable, and God can always give you the treatment he gave Job — for fun, apparently. "

" To VTucker: Wow! I had no idea I would be shaming someone - yet I’m not sure I can really shame anyone. I can draw attention to their action that may be shameful but I don’t think I have the power to call down actual shame on anyone or to make them do something shameful. My purpose was actually to send the message that Christians are not a good example of Christianity and in my haste to deliver that message, I guess I was a pretty poor example of Christianity myself. I’ll repent of that and I ask your forgiveness.

You’re right . . . I was posting to The Question and was actually addressing her. That’s kind of a writing style I use sometimes . . . and knowing how my friend The Question thinks about this topic, I was kind of chiding him along the way. It was good-natured chiding but nonetheless chiding. Why didn’t I address her like in Matthew 18:15? I’m thinking two reasons: #1) that I’m not convinced that addressing her directly in a forum like this would actually be going to her, #2) that I have no way of addressing her personally since I don’t know who she is, and #3) my purpose was to demonstrate that the way she wrote was not the way all Christians think. (I can’t count, either.)

Yes, it’s true that I was no different to her than she was to the original letter-writer, but when we are told not to judge, we’re told not to judge those who do not believe the same as us. What good is it for me or you or her or anyone to tell someone they are going to hell when they don’t believe in hell, don’t think they’re going, think it’s going to be par-tay time down there, or just don’t give a squat to begin with? That’s telling them something they already know or don’t care about. However to correct another Christian is well within our job description. There are guidelines and I did go outside those guidelines (a little) but what other way was there than to post on the same forum. I suppose I could have kept my big browser shut but there’s never been enough evidence to find me guilty of THAT charge.

I much prefer the word “caustic” to sarcastic but that’s the problem with the written word . . . you can’t always demonstrate your true thoughts and feelings through just the written word. Some people can, but those people write books and articles and stuff and make a good living at it. But I assure you that I am not trying to “assert control” over her or anyone. I have enough trouble asserting control over myself (as you can see).

I suppose your statement about “What would happen if people could stop the posturing, drop all the shaming and controlling statements, and honestly just say what they think and believe?” has a great deal of merit but I wasn’t trying to posture, I can’t shame anyone and I did not assert any control. What I DID was not come right out and say what I think and believe because that’s not nearly as entertaining to write OR read.

I will, however, consider your input in the spirit it was given.

To The Question: Glad you came out of the woodwork! Where ya been? I did say it wasn’t difficult to be a Christian but you’re right - it IS difficult to maintain a Christian presence throughout every phase of your life. I “reduced to the ridiculous” to make a point that Christianity is not about tongues, or rapture or healing or baptizing in a pool vs a lake or anything like that. And people who disagree with me about those kind of things are not going to go to hell. We don’t have time and you don’t want to hear all my biblebabble about all the scriptures to back that up. That’s for a blog or something but not here. Heck, I chew up enough bandwith for eight posters as it is!

Finally (isn’t everyone glad?) father bob – not that your last in my book by any means, but you just are my last point – if you believe in the Dali Lama, you should be reaching people for the Dali Lama but reaching people for the Dali Lama is NOT what JESUS wants Christians to do. (Like you didn’t know that!)

Okay . . . I'm done. "

" VTucker: Does "repenting of your sends" mean you weren't in your "write mind"????????? "

" Mattooner at Heart wrote on Feb 20, 2008 3:41 PM:
" VTucker: Does "repenting of your sends" mean you weren't in your "write mind"????????? "

going into weather it's write or not would take to much time. rather then waste that time wandering witch poster sends the most, won needs to look inword. "

" " VTucker: Does "repenting of your sends" mean you weren't in your "write mind"????????? "

You and tammer65 are way too clever for me. :-) I'm glad the two of you lightened up this thread! "

" Dear Father Bob, until the Dalai Lama dies for the sins of the entire human race he remains unworthy. Also he lacks a certain God quality if you know what I mean. The bible clearly warns us that in the last days there will be false Chirst's and false Prophets and I think that we can see very clearly especially in Rev. Jim Jones and the Rev. Sun Yung Moon and all of the other Spiritualist wacko's that seem to have all the answers today. If it wasn't for the fact that Jesus said that the world would not be able to understand the message of the Cross then I would say what's wrong with you people but since he said it then it does make sense. Once you find Christ and you realize that He is all about loving you and having a plan for your life here on earth and for eternity then it should all make sense but again it's religion that gets in the way everytime. "

" "Dear Father Bob, until the Dalai Lama dies for the sins of the entire human race he remains unworthy."
----
Nobody died for the sins of the entire human race, Deep Myths. You might as well say that until the Dalai Lama can hurl thunderbolts from the storm clouds, he is unworthy. "

" so ya gotta be dead to know god? "

" Sometimes it is fun to sit back and listen to others duke it out. I have been reading Thomas Cahills, "Hinges of History' series, in the "Desire of the Everlasting Hills", the book about early Christianity he makes the comment that "there is no hatred as intense as for those who are religiously sinmilar to ones self but nonetheless different." "

" To Deep Thoughts the one who says that the Dalai Lama is "unworthy" is the one who is. The Dalai Lama never claimed to be God nor did Jesus, that claim was made after he died by the writer of the Gospel of John. That very claim created the earliest schism in the church and divides followers "Clinging to the name of a dead man, thinking it will make them pure, the deaf and blind ones fall into error and become defiled." "

" I wrote this book review three years ago about Thomas Cahill, a so-called historian.

Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall to Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe, New York: Doubleday, 1995, 246 pages, illustrated.



Over a decade ago, a book entitled How the Irish Save Civilization topped the best selling non-fiction charts and received a great deal of acclaim. “The word Irish is seldom coupled with the word civilization”, is how Thomas Cahill chose to begin his book. He is right; when one thinks of the Irish, they are more likely to conjure up images of Celts, Catholics, immigrants, or famine. Indeed, Ireland has often been regarded as a marginal country, in close proximity to, but still very much on the fringe of Western civilization. History has frequently mirrored this opinion. Cahill seeks to change this perception in his infamous book. As the title of the book might suggest, he advocates the Irish played a significant role in the transition of Europe from antiquity to the medieval period. So then, exactly just how did the Irish save civilization?



He advances the theory that the Irish saved civilization when they converted to Christianity during the fifth century. Their conversion from paganism to Christianity was remarkable on a number of levels. While Christianity spread with more or less ease internally throughout the Roman Empire, Ireland’s conversion was remarkable because it was never a Roman province. Thus, when Ireland adopted Christianity it became the “first de-Romanized Christianity in history.” (p. 148.) A few charismatic missionaries from Roman Britain, such as Patrick (and another others whom Cahill has admittedly neglected), successfully combined native Irish customs with the foreign practice of Christianity. Additionally, this was remarkable because the point of a spear did not expedite the process of their conversion. However, the most remarkable aspect of their conversion to Christianity was its speed. In less than a century, Ireland had foregone their ancient pagan religion in favor of the new religion of Christ. Unbeknownst to even Pope Leo the Great in Rome, Christianity had spread to the farthest corner of Western Europe by the end of the fifth century.



While Christianity was flourishing elsewhere in Europe, in Ireland it developed its own unique characteristics. One of these characteristics was the monastic tradition. Early Irish monasteries appeared in the late fifth and early sixth centuries. At these sites of religious study, the clergy devoted themselves to spiritual and intellectual pursuits. (p. 151-155.) As the Irish monasteries grew in fame, they attracted “people from across Ireland, then from England, and last from everywhere in Europe.” (p. 157.) Along with Christianity came literacy and the need for texts increased greatly. Thus, Irish monks set about copying their texts. They did not stop at religious texts, and also copied secular manuscripts. (p. 158-159.) Thus we begin to exactly how the Irish saved civilization.



The Irish saved civilization by exporting their monastic tradition, scribing skills, and texts to the barbarians who inherited the Roman world. They first exported these to England, and later to continental Europe. Ammianus Marcellinus in the fifth century, when referring to continental libraries, described them as, “like tombs, closed forever.” (p. 182.) Gregory of Tours, in the sixth century, also lamented the fate of continental literacy and libraries. Thus at the time, Ireland could be depicted as “Europe’s publisher.” (p. 183.) The influence of Irish-Christianity spread across the rest of Europe in the form of rural monasteries, whereas traditional continental Christianity was focused more in urban areas. (p. 188.) Perhaps the greatest testament to Irish influence can be found in the most prominent figure of the Carolingian renaissance, Alcuin. Alcuin studied in England under an Irish monk named Colgu and Alcuin’s successor, Clement Scotus, was also an Irish monk. While the church in Rome may have preserved Christianity in Europe, Cahill suggests the Irish had significantly aided in shaping the future of European Christianity (p. 193-194, 206.) For this, Ireland has received little acknowledgement.



Cahill explains how the Irish saved civilization in a single, long chapter. Structurally, the rest of the book progresses in a chronological manner. Some chapters, like the one describing pre-Christian Ireland and the one detailing the life of Patrick, are only marginally related to his thesis. Therein some discussions are ambiguous, sensational, and unsupported, such as suggesting Patrick’s rational for returning to Ireland was because he was wanted for murder (p. 113.) Other chapters, like those describing Roman life and the decline of the Roman Empire, are completely irrelevant to his thesis. The eating habits of Roman legionnaires and Germanic barbarians, or the philosophic quandaries of Augustine, are best reserved for other texts (p. 15, 51-67.)



A few chapters are left to suggest supplementary themes that are of particular interest to historians. Cahill’s introductory chapter is entitled, “How Real is History?” Aside from a scathing commentary of the English, here he describes the complexities the reader must face when asking who has written history. He implies that historians have unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally, marginalized the Ireland’s contribution to history in standard textbooks. The concluding chapter is entitled, “The End of the World: Is there Any Hope?” Here he chronicles the plight of Ireland after it had exported its Irish-Christianity to Europe. Following to the height of Irish-Christianity, Ireland suffered from multiple invasions. Incursions from the Vikings, Normans, and English all served to further weaken Ireland’s leading role in shaping Christianity. Finally, referring back to his introduction and taking liberty to include another scornful commentary of the English, when modern historians began to delve into the past, Ireland had become the most depressed country in Western Europe; thus he explains how Ireland’s contributions have been, until now, overlooked.



Cahill does not write to the academia, but rather a populist audience. Unlike many books written for academia, his prose is attractive and easy to follow. While history needs more writers like this, his thesis is lacking in many crucial areas. He would have done well to include a more detailed analysis of how Irish-Christianity spread to continental Europe. The strongest evidence supporting his thesis is the direct connection between Alcuin and his Irish monastic background; but for this he apportions but a single paragraph. His work could also have done well with a parallel discussion of the spread of non-Irish Christianity throughout Europe. Specifically, the influences of Benedict of Nursia, the “motherhouse of western monasticism”, is also restricted to brief mention in a single paragraph (p. 181.) Another subject that he covers with particular brevity, again only a paragraph, is the origins of monasticism in Egypt (p. 151.) To suggest Ireland was the only inheritor of this tradition, and thus solely responsible for passing it back to Europe is misleading. Additionally, although he claims they would have been lost, he fails to mention any specific Latin texts that were exported back to Europe (p. 193.) Without a critical analysis, objective comparisons, or documented evidence, Cahill fails to convince the reader as to exactly “how the Irish saved civilization.”



Cahill’s bibliography is downright frightening. Rather than listing the sources he has used to support his thesis, he has chosen to only list the ones he found “especially valuable.” (p. 221.) Furthermore he states, “some of the most deeply held things are sourceless [sic] – or, rather, one can no longer remember where one first learned them.” He continues by stating, “They (the deeply held things) are like the radiation left over from the Big Bang – general, constant, and unplaceable [sic].” Aside from a few references to medieval historians within the body of his work, nearly all of the bibliographic references are secondary sources dating from the late twentieth century. This is simply not good history; at best it is poorly researched, at worst it is historical modernism, with the latter being more likely the case.



Cahill’s work is still very relevant to the historian. It is an example of pseudo-history, far from an attempt at scholarly research. Rather, How the Irish Saved Civilization is an overly romantic portrayal of Ireland’s role in history. Sadly, Cahill has chosen to neglected many of Ireland's great accomplishments during the medieval period. The speed and piety to which the Irish took to the Christian faith was simply amazing. The Táin Bó Cúailnge is an epic tale, glimpsing back into Celtic prehistory, and an equal to Beowulf or The Canterbury Tales. Irish manuscripts, like the Book of Kells, are an impressive art form that is uniquely Irish. Their ability to repel conquerors, during an era of continual territorial warfare, was nothing short of amazing. Ireland has a rich and wonderful history that does not require any embellishment by revisionist history. It is simply inappropriate to make exaggerations like, “(Without the Irish) there would have perished in the west not only literacy but all the habits of mind that encourage thought. And when Islam began its medieval expansion, it would have encountered scant resistance to its plans – just scattered tribes of animists, ready for a new identity.” (p. 193-194.) "

" Interesting, Locke. There are legends of the Irish (St. Brenden?) reaching the West Indies during the 5th century, and stories of the Welsh Madoc and his people reaching America around the 12th century--later to share their genes and culture with the Mandan Indians. "

" thequestion ----- Wasn't Patronius a judge in the court of Nero? Now there's a man whose word can be trusted. "

" Locke, Cahill's book are still "relevant" to everyone. Like all books they need to be read critically. AND like the Bible they do offer interesting insights and interpretations of the life and times of a people. I did refer to the third book in his series not to the first. Have you read that book yet? I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about it. "

" For All, Cahill states that his purpose is to give the reader a sense of the people and the times. In order to do that you have to go beyond "pure facts" and delve into the human psyche. A concept that is anathema to proper historians. As to his bibliography he states "I find myselfdissatisfied with most bibliographies, because I often can't figure out which of the many books an author lists were important to him, and which were not. So, rather than list every book I consulted, I'd prefer to tell you about the ones I found especially valuable." "

" Talk about freudian slips, reread what I wrote, "There is no hatred as intense as for those who are religiously sinmilar to ones self but nonetheless different." SIN milar By the way that statement also holds for academics put that name where religiously is. "

" SINmilar . . . that's good, too! Glad to see you back, Susan--I've missed reading your posts. Also, "By the way that statement also holds for academics put that name where religiously is."--that's very true. I think there must be a sociological principle at work; any group, religious or otherwise, wants to punish the outsider. It goes beyond simply disagreeing, or debating an issue back and forth. This punishing behavior is especially nasty when God's name is brought into it.
"

" Internecine warfare is always the worst, V, whether in the halls of academia, the corporate skyscrapers or the church pews. And to those outside the conflict, it always looks particularly insane. And it is.
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven."
— Mark Twain "

" Medic ----- Wasn't Jesus a preacher in the empire of Tiberius? Now there's a man whose word can be trusted. "

" Sol omnibus lucet - The sun shines upon us all. (Petronius) "

" By the way, here's that old liberal devil ACLU, defending the fundamentalist Christian gay haters once again.
----
The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed support for a high school student who was suspended for wearing an anti-gay T-shirt, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.
Last year, Heidi Zamecnik, of Naperville, Ill., wore a shirt to school last that read "Be Happy, Not Gay" on the Day of Silence, when students can abstain from speaking to protest discrimination against the LGBT community.
A school administrator, according to the lawsuit, demanded that Zamecnik remove the shirt. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group, is suing Indian Prairie School District 204 for its decision.
The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. District Court, claiming the school's policy is unlawfully ambiguous.
"

" What concept is an anathema to proper historians is making up stuff, not bothering to cite where information is gathered, and writing feel-good history. History must be based in fact -- not emotion, not guessing about the human psyche, or writing to achieve a goal other that explaining past events (such as promoting Irish nationalism.) I have not read any of Cahill's works beyond this book -- I will not waste my time reading his garbage than I would reading Rush Limbaugh or James Carvill. "

" The Question: Aren't you a poster during the administration of George W. Bush?

(Sorry . . . that was kinda low but nonetheless it felt great to type it!) "

" ""You might as well say that until the Dalai Lama can hurl thunderbolts from the storm clouds, he is unworthy. ""

i was hurling a few thunderbolts this morning, and thought it was an epiphany.....but it turned out to be lastnight's chinese dinner. "

" God's name. Now that's an interesting statement. What do YOU think God's name is? Jesus? If you do then you have been lied to. God has a name. A personal name. Do you know it? Do you use it? Probably not. You blaspheme him and his SON by calling him everything but his name. The Lord's Prayer says in part (Jesus was praying to his FATHER, not himself by the way) "let your NAME be sanctified". What name? Even Jesus knew his Father had a name (and it wasn't Jesus). I'm sure this will spark more debate by the usual two so-called religious experts on this site...I hope for everyone else's sake they actually look into what the Bible actually teaches, and not stake their everlasting future on what a man teaches or writes in a book. The Bible really teaches that God and Jesus are NOT the same person. If you believe this, you have been lied to by the clergy, who are hated by God and his Son. Research for yourselves the origins of the trinity. The teaching is man's teaching.



I'm sure I am wasting my breath and energy, so hopefully someone will read the previous postings on the origin of the trinity and learn the truth about it, and come to know Jesus and HIS FATHER for what they really are. TWO separate individuals who love mankind and want all to come to a knowledge of them - John 17:3 - THIS means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the ONE WHOM YOU SENT FORTH, Jesus Christ. (notice the SEPARATENESS of the two - Jesus didn't say taking in knowledge of himself alone - he gave glory to his Father first).



Enjoying tearing me apart. A note: when all religion is destroyed by the United Nations then you will remember this and know that I was speaking truth. Also, I never meant to offend anyone, even though I'm sure that has happened - I will no longer be posting on here because it doesn't really accomplish anything except more hate from people who do not understand, or who choose not to understand what the Bible really teaches. "

" The Question: Aren't you a poster during the administration of George W. Bush?
----
Don't remind me. The thought makes me want to vomit. "

" Locke most historians have one fatal flaw they think that, "making up stuff, and writing feel-good history." is not only a waste of time but a travesty. Consequently the history they present is dry and sterile. History was made by living and breathing people. Cahill attempts, and he states clearly this is what he is doing,to get the reader to see, feel, touch, smell and taste the people and the times. He invites the reader to think and to scrutinize, to see life as they lived it. It is never necessary to buy the whole thesis, whether reading Cahill, a text book or the Bible, in order to find something useful. "

" To The Truth: Am I to understand that my salvation is based on whether or not I believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit comprise a Trinity or are separate individuals? Are you claiming that in that one concept lays my lot in eternity? I’ll be interested in seeing your Biblical reference for THAT one!

God hates the clergy? Are you serious? Heck, God doesn’t even hate “fags” like the Looney Tune preacher in Kansas or Nebraska or Wherever claims so I really doubt that he “hates” those who have chosen to spread the Gospel on earth but once again, I’ll be interested in seeing your Biblical reference on THAT one.

We BLASPHEME him when we don’t use His proper name? Heck, even HE called himself different things at different times. I’m giving Him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what His name is. I’m pretty confident not only does He know his own name, but understands who I’m speaking to and of when I use the terms “Beginning and End”, “Alpha and Omega”, “The Great I Am”, etc. But once again, I’m open to reading your source of information.

As far as the so-called religious experts are concerned, I’ve been debating with these fine people for quite some time and I don’t recall ANY of them claiming to be experts in religion. I don’t know where you’re getting your information about religious expertise, but it ain’t from here.

You are obviously well read in the scriptures. That being the case, you know that as Christians, we are going to be “in the world”. Taking hits for God is part of being “in the world”. I LOVE it when my friends like Question, father bob, shumphreys, Rotty, etc. and etc. challenge my beliefs! It makes me have to think and go back and check on what it is I really DO believe in. It makes me sharper on my beliefs.

And you’re talking about those “Who choose not to understand?” Let’s talk about choosing. You cannot make statements like the four I described in the first four paragraphs of this post and NOT expect to be challenged. If you don’t want to come back to this site and continue these debates, that’s up to you. But don’t blame those non-Christians – or even Christians – who disagree with you. It’s YOUR choice. YOU have to take responsibility for it. "

" To the Truth, actually God has many names. I'm sure The Question or M@H can find or remember the number of names the Hebrews had fod God. Quit worrying about other peoples "everlasting future". For enlightened souls, that threat carries no weight, there is nothing to fear about death or the future. The trinity is a very difficult doctrine to grasp and it did appear long after Jesus left the scene. I really don't understand why the Catholic church came up with the concept, and from their explanations I don't think they fully understand either. BUT that doesn't mean that a trinitarian is bad, or lying. It just means that they bought into a different message from the one you bought. Arguing about dualism, trinitarianism, polytheism, or atheism is "much ado about nothing." It is all totally and completely irrelevant, in the broader scheme of things. "

" Oh and Locke, average schmucks (like me) get "turned on and thus tune in" to history by reading historical novels and watching historical dramas (like The Lion in Winter, or the Three Wives of Henry the VIII, both movies were discredited by historians). We never get excited by reading a text book or watching a documentary. Those come later when we get excited and decide to seek more information or "the facts". "

" To The Truth: Am I to understand that my salvation is based on whether or not I believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit comprise a Trinity or are separate individuals? Are you claiming that in that one concept lays my lot in eternity? I’ll be interested in seeing your Biblical reference for THAT one!

God hates the clergy? Are you serious? Heck, God doesn’t even hate “fags” like the Looney Tune preacher in Kansas or Nebraska or Wherever claims so I really doubt that he “hates” those who have chosen to spread the Gospel on earth but once again, I’ll be interested in seeing your Biblical reference on THAT one.

We BLASPHEME him when we don’t use His proper name? Heck, even HE called himself different things at different times. I’m giving Him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what His name is. I’m pretty confident not only does He know his own name, but understands who I’m speaking to and of when I use the terms “Beginning and End”, “Alpha and Omega”, “The Great I Am”, etc. But once again, I’m open to reading your source of information.

As far as the so-called religious experts are concerned, I’ve been debating with these fine people for quite some time and I don’t recall ANY of them claiming to be experts in religion. I don’t know where you’re getting your information about religious expertise, but it ain’t from here.

You are obviously well read in the scriptures. That being the case, you know that as Christians, we are going to be “in the world”. Taking hits for God is part of being “in the world”. I LOVE it when my friends like Question, father bob, shumphreys, Rotty, etc. and etc. challenge my beliefs! It makes me have to think and go back and check on what it is I really DO believe in. It makes me sharper on my beliefs.

And you’re talking about those “Who choose not to understand?” Let’s talk about choosing. You cannot make statements like the four I described in the first four paragraphs of this post and NOT expect to be challenged. If you don’t want to come back to this site and continue these debates, that’s up to you. But don’t blame those non-Christians – or even Christians – who disagree with you. It’s YOUR choice. YOU have to take responsibility for it. "

" Susan H., if you haven't read I, Claudius and Claudius the God, try those. I read them years ago and could hardly put them down . . . gruesome in places, but very good. To The Truth--you didn't offend me, but I must admit it boggles my mind when anyone can claim to know exactly what the Bible means. To understand what the writers were getting at, you'd have to know the culture they were a part of. (That's why I said those passages from John stress Christ's divinity.) I'm not speaking about the Trinity here, a concept which I agree is not in Scripture. I am not a religious expert, but when it comes to translations of the Bible it makes sense to me to go with something most scholars agree on. Not that there's a guarantee of accuracy, but it is more likely. Don't worry so much about people (including yourself) possibly having something wrong in their doctrine. Do you believe God is cruel enough to zap someone just because he or she doesn't understand something in the Bible? "

" For M@H: You don't have to go as far as Kansas or Nebraska, to find those who claim God hates "fags". I don't think you were posting on here when we had our own local Bible experts pushing that line. This issue resulted in one of the longest lasting threads on this site, and drew out some of the most hateful and ignorant comments I have ever seen. A lot of us found it quite humorous that anyone could could claim to be so religious and yet so full of hate and vengeance. "

" The worst part is the people (complaining) loudest about being persecuted for their Christianity aren’t Christians at all. They’re demagogues and conmen and scolds, and the only thing they worship is power. If you believe Jesus ever had a good word for war, or torture, or tax cuts for the rich, or raping the earth, or refusing water for dying migrants, then you might as well believe bunnies lay painted eggs.
— Bill Maher "

" To Vicky sometimes I wish that God would "zap" those who don't read the Bible as "I" think it should be read. Fortunately or unfortunately life doesn't work that way. I never read I Claudius, I saw the movie a long long time ago, pretty gruesome. Another series of books that are interesting are Karen Armstrongs books, "A History of God", "Holy War The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's world", "The Great Transformation The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions. and "Buddha". I suspect that locke might not approve of them but I have found them very interesting about the lives and the times of the people, not just dates and places (facts). "

" You mean bunnies don't lay painted eggs??

Hallelujah, I've been saved!!

Whew! "

" I have no problem with people "enjoying" history, but Cahill presents himself as a historian -- he is not. Just because his media is a book, that doesn't qualify him to present false claims masked as truth anymore than say, Oliver Stone. If you would like to read an awesome historical fiction book, I recommend The Autobiography of Henry the VIII. I am not picking on Cahill because I don't like his view, but the bottom line is he says the "Irish saved civilization" because they transcribed books that would have been lost in the "dark ages" but fails to mention which books. Also, he claims the Irish were the primary factor in the development of the monastic traditions of early Christianity -- they weren't. "

" Locke there isn't anything new about the Irish monks transcribing and saving the writings of philosophers and thinkers. I heard that many years before I ever read Cahill. But don't ask me where I learned about it. So his claim isn't that far fetched. The Muslims also did the same in Spain, so they can also be credited with saving civilization during that time. The point is they respected writings from other cultures, transcribed them and squirrelled them away at a time when books were being burned in other places. "

" Locke I never got "the impression" that Cahill claimed that the Irish were the "primary factor in the development of the monastic traditions". But he did tell about the development of their monastic traditions and how they spread it all over. The difference is subtle but important.AND on page 196 he says, "Wherever they went the Irish brought with them their books, many unseen in Europe for centuries....their love of learning and their skills in bookmaking....they reestablished literacy and breathed new life into the exhausted literary culture of Europe. That is how the Irish saved civilization." "

" Thanks, Susan. Karen Armstrong's book sounds especially interesting. Usually, though, I prefer a good historical novel to reading actual history--although my opportunities to read anything these days are few and far between.... "

" NOT MUCH COMMENTS FOR NOW. I'M A NEW COMER TO THIS SITE. FOR NOW THIS SITE APPEARS TO BE INSTRUCTIVE, EDUCATIVE AND INSPIRATIONAL. I SAY WELL DONE AND GOD BLESS YOU FOR THE GOOD WORK YOU PEOPLE ARE DOING FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST IN PARTICULAR AND THE WORLD IN GENERAL.
I LOOK FORWADR TO RECEIVING A REGULAR NEWSLETTER IF ANY
AGAIN MANY THANKS "