Those who never heard about Jesus?

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What is Jesus and the apostles quoting in the New Testament? Meaning what Bible were they getting the quotes from?

Jesus and his disciples primarily quoted and referenced the Torah and Jewish law. Paul not only quoted the Torah and Jewish law, but he also quoted the Greek philosophers a couple times. This is to be expected. The revelation that became known as "Christianity" was evolving out of Judaism in a culture that was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy.

We see the same thing in Buddhism. Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) referenced the Hindu Vedas and shares various concepts that were eventually popularized in the Upanishads. After all, just as Buddhism grew out of Hinduism; Christianity grew out of Judaism.

If you go back even further, every modern religion has reflections of spiritual truths originally found in the ancient mythologies possessed by cultures predating them that have now vanished in the sands of time. And those mythologies even embody concepts found in various cave art and burial customs practiced by Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals.

It's almost like the same story is told over and over again in innumerable ways. This is indicative of a timeless universal spiritual truth.

"I believe that God's truth is higher, deeper & longer than all our creeds and includes what is best in each of them." - Horace Greeley, Unitarian Universalist

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Jesus and his disciples primarily quoted and referenced the Torah and Jewish law. Paul not only quoted the Torah and Jewish law, but he also quoted the Greek philosophers a couple times. This is to be expected. The revelation that became known as "Christianity" was evolving out of Judaism in a culture that was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy.

We see the same thing in Buddhism. Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) referenced the Hindu Vedas and shares various concepts that were eventually popularized in the Upanishads. After all, just as Buddhism grew out of Hinduism; Christianity grew out of Judaism.

Sidhartha quoted Vedic writings, because he was a vedic reformist. Yet, if I asked you what translation or interpretation did he quote from could you tell me? That is what I'm asking you. Torah what Torah? What Torah did Jesus and the apostles get their quotes from? Christianity grew out of Judaism? What Judaism? You mean Jesus look liked Rabbi Mendel Schneerson? Was Jesus part of the Baal Shem Tov's Chabad? What Judaism did Christianity grow out of?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i'm talking about maybe pausing to consider how glossololia does not reflect the tongues of the NT, no crowds are amazed, etc., and how believing it is one thing, but teaching it is another.

Maybe if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his rump everytime he hopped?

There are two groups in Acts 2 hearing the tongues, one are devout, and the other are called "others." Only one group could understand the tongues. The OTHERS only could hear babbling drunks.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sidhartha quoted Vedic writings, because he was a vedic reformist. Yet, if I asked you what translation or interpretation did he quote from could you tell me? That is what I'm asking you. Torah what Torah? What Torah did Jesus and the apostles get their quotes from? Christianity grew out of Judaism? What Judaism? You mean Jesus look liked Rabbi Mendel Schneerson? Was Jesus part of the Baal Shem Tov's Chabad? What Judaism did Christianity grow out of?

Exactly.

[shazeep]

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Maybe if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his rump everytime he hopped?
There are two groups in Acts 2 hearing the tongues, one are devout, and the other are called "others." Only one group could understand the tongues. The OTHERS only could hear babbling drunks.

VERY good, Beloved. I believe that false believer, shazeep, is the latter.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I apologize. But I'm not sure if I understood your statements above. If "God" inspired and preserved the Bible, he didn't do a good job because the Bible, as it has been copied and handed down to us, contains many contradictions, in accuracies, and mistranslations.

I saw many alleged contradictions in the bible, but someone showed how they don't contradict at all.

For example, one chapter says a certain king was an extremely young age when he started to rule, while another chapter in another book says the same king was much older when he started to rule. It turns out that when a king died and the dominion went to the son, the new king's mother filled in until a certain age when the young king was actually fit to rule himself. Hence, the earlier age was when the mother actually ruled, and the older age was when the king stepped up to rule himself.

There are all sorts of variations of ancient Hebrew culture that actually explain alleged contradictions to not be contradictions at all. And you are willing to risk such a serious issue by not researching these things to make sure you're right?

So, when you take the word of God and accuse it of contradictions, you are dabbling with things you might not know enough about to make such claims. And you had better be right, because you've just made a serious accusation that you base your entire scope of all religions upon.

What concerned me the most so far in our interaction was how you said all these religions are led by the same God. You defended reincarnation as if it was taught in the bible. But when I listed many, and I have more, verses that show reincarnation conflicts with all the bible says, you pulled out the mistranslation and time-distortion card. Hypothetically if I was right and the bible was not authored by the same Spirit that these other religions were, and these verses proved it, you would never know because you relegate anything that conflicts with your philosophy as translated error. Isn't it a bit suspicious for you to take verses in the bible that refute reincarnation and relegate them to mistranslation or interpolation, after you claim the religious books across the board are all inspired by the one God?

And what is your basis of sticking to your guns on this matter? I can only see it as what you WANT to believe, rather than what perhaps is intended for us to believe about the issue. All you can do is say such and such a verse is perverted and not original when a contradiction to something like reincarnation is found. You cannot prove that, but simply appear to disfavour my viewpoint. There is no solid foundation on that sort of reasoning because the verses you claim agree with religious texts across the board may have been perverted as much as the texts you blatantly claim are contradictions due to perversion through time. Everything's up for grabs and nothing can be believed in the bible, if that's the case.

If I honestly believed the bible was full of contradictions, and the same goes for all holy books around the world, when one author originally inspired them all, I'd trash the whole religious walk altogether. All we're left with is a whim and a prayer. Nothing can be known.

And if there is a God like we both agree there is, He would not leave the world in such chaos and confusion over truth. It sounds nice to think that way and accept the chaos and confusion model because it seems to base itself on simply wanting to believe everyone will make it, like you obviously chose to believe. But we cannot really know if that is true or not since everything ever written by alleged inspiration of God is perverted and lost. So, if one favours universal reconciliation like you apparently do, it's all at the cost of the never having a solid foundation for your calling and election.

I think this is the betraying factor behind your view. It pleases the flesh. If everything's up in the air as to what is genuine truth and what is not in the Bible, as well as all religious texts, ultimately our flesh with its changing and turbulent whims and urges becomes the arbiter of truth. And concoct the kind of God we want to serve, rather than accept the actual God we need to serve. And that is idolatry at its best.

I'll quote what I said from an earlier post.

The soul evolves and changes through time. Many souls are in unrest because they have not forgiven themselves, feel unworthy, deny that they are dead, or because they have not accepted the spiritual realities they are now experiencing due to those experiences being contrary to their religious dogmas. It is often the most "religious" that find the greatest trouble passing over. This is an everlasting "Hell". But eventually every soul will surrender, find peace, and enter the Light. Those who do enter the Light return to the Source of All, God, and are as rain drops returning to the sea. They will once again emanate from the Source as naturally as water vapor once more arises from the seas in the midday sun. In this, the Source (God), experiences all things (including himself) in innumerable ways. He desires to know and be known. And so through this He both knows and is known. This has been the process since all life evolved from a single celled organism roughly 3.5 billion years ago. He is the All In All.

Oneness is a much greater concept than you realize Rev. Blume.

Not at the expense of a solid foundation.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

VERY good, Beloved. I believe that false believer, shazeep, is the latter.

well, that is your right, but i notice you did not join the convo until i suggested following Christ.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, that is your right, but i notice you did not join the convo until i suggested following Christ.

YOU HAVE ADMITTED allah AS YOUR FIRST LOVE.

Muslims cannot deny allah, their false god.
Your first love, as with all muslims, is the love for allah, whom the
Apostle Paul called ". . . the god of this world." Yet not the God that
CREATED this world, even the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
but the god to those who reject the gospel that saves.

[shazeep]