Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "All things work together for Good".

Well good folks, it's this way, we are blessed to have her. A friend tells me his Presbyterian church offered a man minister $90,000 a year, and he turned them down.

If, and when she leaves we are plain sunk.

Amen!

I didn't mean to come across as holier than thou, or to judge you. I've been dealing with friends here on this end who want to be involved with ministry, but do not know the Lord or have any interest in the Word. I'm trying to encourage them on this end and it's been on my mind.

Hey guys,

I just found a Christian movie this morning that might be a blessing to you. Have a great day!

For you guys you feel like you hear from God within and find that of equal to or greater importance and what you read in the Bible; how do you differentiate your experience from the Gnosticism that Paul condemned in his letters?

The central tenets of Gnosticism are the polar opposite of the central tenets of Christianity. And no one here has stated the “equal to or greater importance than what you read in the Bible” that you refer to. None of the apostles had the Bible though. And none of Jesus’ early first century followers had the Bible either. The Bible didn’t even exist until the 4th century. But there were a lot of Jesus followers in the meantime...and their relationship with the Savior was likely just as valid as yours is.

Without the Bible, who is Jesus?

Ain't no pup tents in heaven, just mansions. (John 14)

And the predestination in Romans 8 is to be be conformed to the image
of Jesus Christ -- verse 29.

"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119:89) He'd still be God

Obviously. But how do we know about him? From what our alcoholic uncle told us?

I’m not implying that anyone here is practicing full-blown Gnosticism.

In the old testament the charge leveled at Israel through the prophets was never that they had abandoned temple worship. It was always because of what they had added to temple worship. They kept the groves and high places.

In the early church parameters of Gnosticism, legalism, antinomianism and several other ideologies were being mixed into Christianity. The apostles condemned these added teachings.

Gnosticism was not seen as full blown but in a hierarchy of upper level Christians who were supposedly receiving direct revelation from God.

How do the members here, who believe in daily or frequent direct revelation, differentiate what you experience from the Gnosticism that the apostles condemned?

How'd you all like that movie this morning?

I'd not post another in the same day, but there's been some discussion on Bible history. That's an interesting topic. This documentary was well done and might be of interest to those who want a greater appreciation for God's Word. It covers ancient source manuscripts for the Latin and Greek N.T.s, the Dead Sea Scrolls to our most modern versions. Well worth the time. Set at 720p for best quality. Blessings!

Nobody here has stated the “daily or frequent direct revelation” that you refer to. That Jesus ‘can’ reveal Himself in any manner He chooses has been stated. That God doesn’t ‘only’ reveal Himself through the Bible has been stated. The apostles didn’t condemn communion with God by means other than a Bible which didn’t even exist yet. They condemned the tenets of gnostic theology that were in direct opposition to the tenets of Christianity. The fact that none of the apostles, and none of the many early first century followers of Jesus had a Bible likely didn’t interfere with their salvation, or their abilities to have communion with God. I’m certain they asked, as we do, for knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. Not having a Bible was clearly not an issue with any of em’.

Alright then. I am alive. I'm not sure everybody is though because a lot of them act like pre programmed robots just regurgitating their original programming when I try to talk to them.Me and Jesus got this thing going on where I trust him and he has a great time living my weird and dramatic life right along with me. Yea, sometimes I satisfy my flesh ,but that's OK cause Jesus picked up that tab,and I keep on trying to do better,which is the real and only point anyway. Me and Jesus keep on going working on me.cause I got a big plank sticking out my eye.I got to be able to see clear to help anybody else,but Jesus loves me anyway,which might just mean that I love and accept myself. It might mean both since we are really just one anyway.

I got to keep on working on the truth I know,you know all those little things that the small still voice tells you that you ought to get around to doing instead in just saying someday you will start. Jesus said it was the little foxes that spoil the vine. Do you understand any of that? It all boild down to ,"If you are born again with the Spirit of Truth in you,then no man has to tell you what to do. You know what you ought to do. You have just been making excuses up till now,and telling yourself that someday you will get it right. That someday is now and life is now and Heaven is now,if you live in God,and he lives in and breathes through you.

Ed Brady, "Forgive yourself"

How would your alcoholic uncle know anything?

"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." (Psalm 19)

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.(Romans 1:19-21)

Creation shows you a ton about the great God and his Son the Lord Jesus Christ. You (in the collective sense as well as the individual sense ) are without excuse, even without the Bible.

Good to see you posting good Brother. I'll bet those grandchildren are growing like weeds!

Occasionally you seem to forget Doc Rocket's helping us with some historical facts. Or you just to reject them.




Originally Posted By antlers
If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket

Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.

However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.

The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.

So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.

The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.

99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.

This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.

So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.

Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.

Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.

So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.

And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.

People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.

I have no problem with anyone defending their beliefs. Especially if they’re honest and civil about it. Doc’s position statement doesn’t negate anything that I said in my original post. I stand by what I said.

Even with the bible, we don't really know happened.

Do you operate with this personal relationship/experience being the means of obtaining knowledge of God and growing spiritually?