xjwsforChrist

I never knew all the bible wasn't inspired of God, how stupid is that. I think it comes from my following and believing my JW parents understanding of it all. I just followed and never had a thought as to proving it all growing up.

I see though that it is like a history book and a diary with some inspired books included.. However since it was written down again and again it was altered by men who twisted it o suit themselves. That all makes total sense :::smile:::

I can see that things should be tested when it comes to Gods word, but many don't see how too.

Thanks for the explanation Shelby.

I will check out those extra bible books just for fun and because I love reading historical stuff.

Yes.

And in that light, the simplest answer to the OP... is does it matter? Inspired, not inspired, scripture, not scripture, errant or not (nothing written is inerrant that I know of)... it is to Him that we turn.

We do not need to waste time or effort (or sanity, lol), going back and combing through and trying to determine where errors might be (in writing or in understanding)... because we need only listen to Christ. Then we have the Truth, and if someone misuses something written to prove this point or that point, we can see that through what He has taught.

I do not mean to force anything upon anyone else either. There is ONE Teacher: Christ, and it is to Him that we may each go, to be taught. I just meant to answer the OP, lol.

Peace to you all,
tammy

Amen my sister and good morning to you. Happy summer as well!!!!!!!

Love Justmom

*waves hello to Just Mom*

Love to you too!
Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

Jhn 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.


Jhn 20:31 But these are written that you may believe [fn] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Which is why it would be reasonable to believe that our Lord may tell us things that are not always written in the bible or even tell us things that may be different because of misinterpretation on mans part to his own advantage.


Love Justmom.

It's not stupid to believe that the Bible is inspired of God, to say so is to call many people stupid All through my youth I've always seen the Bible as a collection of stories, letters, and perhaps some history that is centered around God/Jesus. The letters of Paul to the various churches and cities are just that, letters to them. Some find the messages to be valid for current times and thus abide by them.

The Bible is very interpretive and thus serves a wide range of people. I always cringe a bit whenever I hear the issues of "false scribes" come about.

To the hypothetical that asked if Jesus was alive today and we knew it, would we still go to the Bible to make sure? I think a few examples were already given of Jesus making references to the Old Testament to passages that heralded his coming. The question posed already assumes an answer because if we knew something without a doubt then what more is there to be gleaned from making sure? There seems to be a subtle message of that those who go and check to make sure are lacking in faith or do not have "true" faith. I don't see this as a competition of who has more faith or what the quality of a person's faith is.

What I am addressing is the Bible and the "false scribes" argument. Why quote the Bible at all? If a person hears information from the source then instead of utilizing Bible quotes from a collection that is already deemed suspect why not just quote what is heard? Why use biblical verses to bolster one's argument? I repeatedly hear the criticisms of man and religion. I would request that those who hear God record the conversations and share them. To have a record of what the living God is currently saying. In time, we would have enough material to perhaps serve as an addendum to the Bible Later as time goes further by we can see if these new revelations are of God or from false scribes.

It is admitted that not all that is heard from God is understood. That even those who hear must sometimes interpret as they can and later find out that their interpretations aren't quite on the money and new revelations come to pass which subtly change their understanding of the original message.
The Bible can be seen as a set of encyclopedias then that unlike modern encyclopedias are not changed when new info dispels the mistakes of the old and a new edition is printed. I wonder what people here think of the Koran in terms of reliability and God's message? Is the Bible a more valid tome?

God is Truth. That is accepted. But as soon as that Truth is shared via man it becomes suspect As humans we can't help but impart our own flavors and experiences to season what has been shared.
There are a lot of revisionist texts out there. Some question if the Holocaust was exaggerated. Some question if the Japanese army really commited all those atrocities in China. False scribes indeed the control and check is the abundance of other records that try to show the truth. It's possible that the Bible is made up and none of the stories or history is valid. But then historians are constantly unearthing new texts and older manuscripts and seeing if the general text is the same or if information has been blatantly altered. Makes some wonder if there is a Bible conspiracy afoot The Truth is out there *plays X-Files theme*

_________________
To fear me is to love me....

Morning Pup!




It is definitely not stupid... but it is one of those... "I can't believe I didn't SEE that before" moments that all people have at some point (or many points, lol) or other. Reason being because we take for granted what men tell us sometimes or is generally accepted (so our eyes and ears lie to us)... and... some people's faith is based on the inerrancy and inspiration of that entire book. And if that gets taken away (house upon the sand, rather than upon the Rock), then they often lose their faith... IF they have not learned that they can instead build their faith upon Christ, who IS sure.




It is a lack of faith in the Spirit to check what one hears from Him, in spirit. But it is not an absence of faith. But you are right in seeing that it is not meant as a competition of who has more faith or better faith, etc. I mean, I cannot tell you how many times that our Lord has told me something in spirit, and I have hesitated, going and checking to see if there is merit to what I 'think' I am hearing from Him. Then, seeing the truth of it, I kick myself. Why did I not just put faith in HIM and what HE told me? Why did I not listen to HIM? But from these instances, I have learned TO put faith in what He says; so they may serve as training for a time when we may need to follow Him when He speaks and calls, without hesitation.



Because people want/need it to be backed up to even consider it. Then, perhaps now having seen it, and now being able to consider the possibility, that person may go and ask for themselves, so that they can know for sure, rather than take another man's word for it. Or perhaps it helps to build their faith, so that they might themselves be open to hearing Christ and putting faith in what He tells them.

But even on this forum, there have been many things shared from the Spirit, and some who have simply gone and asked themselves if it is true from the Source, not always needing the backing.

Now on a certain other forum, lol... if you share something given in spirit, the demand has been 'where is THAT written?' While at the same time and from the same people come the question about why quote scripture at all, why not just share as is heard? LOL... lose/lose. Children in the marketplace. "tell us something new that you could not have known from what is written"... and in the same breath... "oh please... where is THAT written?"



Would that not be taking a step backward For one, if the bible right now is not free from error or lying pen of the scribes, or self-made interpretations, then why would anything else be so? For two, and most important... the SPIRIT will teach and guide us into all truth. Telling people to rely upon someone else or the written word is still not going to the Spirit of Truth, of Christ.

Then people make an idol out of the written word. Which is something that has been done by some/many with regard to the bible, today. Calling it the Truth, the Word of God... and looking to IT as the Image of God. But those roles belong to Christ.




People should not put their own interpretations on what is heard. If they do not understand, then they should state so, or ask for understanding. Not make up their own interpretation. And if they do get it wrong, then they should state so... hey, I overstepped here... forgive me... rather than blame it on God (which is what the wts does with their new light)

But this is a reason one should not put their faith in another man, but test the inspired expression, and ask for themselves of Christ.



If something new comes along though, it does dispel the old, if it replaces it. If the original was wrong. That is what the jws call 'new light' (though more often it is 'flickering light' ; ) ).



The words in the Koran were given to Mohammad to give to Ishmael, who is also a son of Abraham, and who also entered into a covenant with God. (Ishmael was circumcised with his father, Abraham.) I would do, and did do, the same for Koran as for the bible... and that is to ask my Lord about it. Not sure I can go into that at the moment... but like anything else written, the Koran is subject to the same errors in translation or in understanding of the scribes, and certainly interpretation by its followers now.



Well, we should try not to do that, lol... but I agree that this happens all the time. One reason we should not put our faith in what man says, regardless of how accepted it is... but in Christ and God. Listening to THEM.



Absolutely agree with you here Pup on the false scribes in the rest of the written world as well, and the media. False scribes responsible for many lies, propaganda, racism, sexism, wars, hate-mongering; fear-mongering, etc.

Peace!!

tammy

A couple things here, dear Pup (mornin' and peace to you! and PLEASE don't take my use of caps as shouting - they're just for emphasis).



I can't see where anyone HERE has called anyone "stupid" for believing the Bible is inspired of God; however, many do believe that those who believe so are stupid. Here, I think we've just learned that such are ignorant of some truths... which doesn't mean they are or make them stupid. Just uninformed. Second, the Bible isn't inspired of God... and it contains information that, if the reader where truly paying attention, would show the reader that. Third, just because one believes something... heck, just because of LOT of folks ("many") believe it doesn't make it accurate or even true. Yes? Fourth, what's wrong with calling many people stupid. I mean, there ARE some instances where many people ARE stupid... yes? MANY cases. And MANY people. Yes? In which case, it would be stupid to NOT call those many such. Yes?



Which is exactly what it is! BUT... not all of those "stories, letters, and... history" was inspired (of God). All SCRIPTURE is inspired, yes. But not all that is WRITTEN, nor all that is in the Bible. In addition, the Bible doesn't contain ALL scripture. For example, it does not contain the Book of Enoch, which was inspired. Or the Book of Barach. Or the Book of Jashar. All of these were inspired... and thus, "scripture." It also contains, though, many books that were NOT inspired (and thus, not "scripture").

People forget that the canonization of the Bible was the result of a council of MEN deciding what writings would be included and which would not. Two GREAT examples are the gospels and Paul's letters to the Corinthians. In the first instance (the gospels), anyone who has really researched the Bible would know that (1) there are other gospels that were not included. Along with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and "John", there are the gospels of Thomas, of Barnabas, and others. Indeed, LUKE wrote that MANY had undertaken to set down the events. Yet, the Bible only contains four such accounts, and only ONE is contemporary with Luke (Matthew). If MANY wrote accounts... where are they? And wouldn't they be "just as" inspired as Matthew, Mark, "John," and Luke's accounts? If so, then why wasn't Thomas' account included? Or Barnabas'? Or the many others? Where ARE the others? If ALL of the writings were inspired by God, how could THEY have gotten lost, but the four currently canonized NOT be so?

And why didn't Luke SAY his writings were inspired, rather than SAYING that he got them from interviewing people who were eyewitnesses? Why didn't GOD just tell him?

Then there's the issue of the letters to the Corinthian congregation: per Paul, he wrote THREE letters. Yet, only two... his second and third (and so, incorrectly entitled his first and second) are contained in the Bible. If the latter two were inspired, why wasn't the first? If all three were, why isn't the first in the Bible? The story goes that certain men considered the first too harsh to be included. But... wait... it was "inspired" of God... right? Who, then, are those men to decided to leave OUT an inspired writing (and thus "scripture")? But they did so choose and did so leave out.

AND if those who DID choose what was to be canonized were inspired, too... why did they attribute the gospel account written by LAZARUS... to a "John"??? Didn't the (holy spirit/Holy Spirit) that "inspired" them TELL them who it was? Or did IT lie?? How can THAT be?? Why did it/he tell them that the letter to the Hebrews (also written by Lazarus) was written by Paul???

One can only miss that the BIBLE is not inspired... and thus not scripture... if one is either blind... or doesn't WANT to know the truth ABOUT it, dear one. The first is a tragedy, yes, but can be healed (Revelation 3:17). The second is a tragedy, as well, based on a choice. That choice can be changed, yes, as can most choices. BOTH, however, require a wishing... a TRUE desire... on the part of the one who is blind... or choosing... though.



Yes! And some don't. Like some in the world believe child marriage is okay and some don't. Some believe slavery is okay and some don't. Some believe the world needs to move past such bans. Some don't. ALL of these groups include "many." Which, though, would YOU say is "stupid"?



Why, if the issue is TRUE, if there ARE false scribes? You don't think many of the tenets of the WTBTS are due to false scribes? Let me ASSURE you, dear one... they are. Those folks go so far as to WRITE that they are "the truth", when there is only ONE Truth, Christ, whom they barely recognize. They even use their false pen to change dates, make false prophecies, teach false doctrines. Why does the TRUTH... that there are, have always been, and yet will be false scribes unnerve you?



He did... but to WHOM: those who BELIEVED he was the Son of God? Or those who did NOT believe he was? You should check your Bible if you'r not sure, but I can tell you: it was not to the former. Because as he SAID to Peter, "Flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but MY FATHER WHO IS IN THE HEAVENS did." So, THOSE didn't need to check the scriptures. THEY received corroboration directly from JAH. The latter, though... not so much. So, my Lord had to keep referring them BACK... to "Moses."



EXACTLY!!! Yet, when certains ones here say they receive something directly from Christ... who IS HERE (yes? Because he SAID, "Look... I AM WITH YOU... ALL THE DAYS"??) just not in PHYSICAL BODY... they are opposed and ridiculed. They are even asked whether they would take what he says to them over what's written in the Bible. Is this not the EXACT same thing? THEN, he was with them in physical body. Did they have to go and check the Bible each time he said something? Of course, not... not if they BELIEVED he was the Son of God. NOW, he is with us in spirit. WHY go back and check the BIBLE each time he tells us something... IF WE BELIEVE HE IS THE SON OF GOD?? IF we truly believe that. If we DON'T... then we MUST "test" the "inspired expression," yes??



I SO find this interesting and, if I can be truthful, irritating. Because it is NOT what's happening here, at ALL! To the contrary, the exact OPPOSITE is what is occurring! The OUTRIGHT message is to NOT... EXERCISE... faith... and BELIEVE what he tells us... but TO go back and make sure by searching the Bible! And it wasn't even a SUBTLE message, but outright. Yet, for some reason you don't seem to see that. Rather, you only see the RESPONSE as some kind of subtle message that those who do go and check are lacking in faith. The ones responding are defending THEIR faith, NOT taking issue with OTHERS'. Do you not SEE that?

Now, if others want to call into QUESTION our faith... and we say, "Hey, WE don't NEED to go back and look, because WE know who is talking to us and WE believe what he says over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING else!" well, of another takes that to mean they LACK faith... is is WE who said that? Or... is it perhaps the "voice" tell THEM the truth about it, which voice they DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO??



Ah, now, see, dear one... THAT... is not the TRUTH: you DO see it that way, else you wouldn't have commented as you did, just here and above. Because you wouldn't have taken OFFENSE... as your comments indicate you did. I understand that you do see/THINK you did, but the TRUTH is that you did. Else... you would have seen no need to defend YOUR position as you HAVE here. NO ONE said anything here about others' lack of faith, specifically. One, however, DID go after another's faith... in the Voice of the Fine Shepherd, Christ, over the "voice" of the Bible. But I don't see where you said to such one, "Hey, now, wait... if HER faith says she should listen to the voice and that the voice is Christ's, who are you to take issue with that?" Because, in truth, THAT was an ATTACK (albeit perhaps unintentional) on another's FAITH. IN Christ! IN his voice!

You also indicated the same above when you commented to the effect of "here we go again." Please... go back and read the comments and see where the "turn" took place... once again. And who so turned it. Once again. I personally was flabbergasted, given the recent "agreements" I thought were made to steer clear of such kinds of comments. Dear Zoe asked as to whether a certain old Bible was inspired. Then the issue of knowing what WAS inspired versus what wasn't and how came up. And one professed to listening to Christ over the Bible, and... well, here we go again. Why?? Why could the one's response as to HER faith simply be accepted? Why was HER faith called into question? And why didn't YOU call into question the one doing such calling?

To the contrary, what I see is you doing is supporting the calling of another's faith into question... while you BOTH are accusing others of pointing out your "LACK of faith"... which never occurred here. FAITH was asserted. LACK of faith... as perhaps that applies to you or some others HERE... was brought up by you... and you alone.

YOU are taking ones explaining THEIR faith... as an indication of their belief of a lack of faith on the part of yourself and perhaps another. WHY? The TRUTH is that that's something you have to ask yourself... and look inside yourself... if you dare... to answer, dear one. Because this discussion was never about the lack of faith of anyone HERE by dear tec or myself.

Do you SEE?



(Smile) We TOTALLY agree with you, dear one! And WOULD that it could be that way! BUT... not all hear... yet. And so not all can put faith in what we share. To the contrary, many, if not most, would argue as to our doing so. Indeed, we've been THERE. What we share from what is written is FOR the unbelievers, dear one - those who still lack faith SUFFICIENT to hear for themselves... and so need to "see it in writing". Those who still walk by SIGHT... and so believe... based on what their eyes see (when they read). Surely, you understand how accusations would fly if we WERE to just simply say what we hear?

But... I am now told by my Lord that YOU won't believe that unless YOU see it. SO... I am to post without including Bible verses for a time. Just so that you can SEE how that turns out.



I cannot respond as to anyone other than myself, but surely you see that I do that. I have been, for close to 20 years, now, dear one. Ask most anyone here. Heck, ask the opposers. I am sure they would be more than happy to SHOW you some of the earlier things I shared! Which haven't changed (as they are the first to point out). Because my Lord hasn't changed.



Good Lordy... NO! NO! No, no, no. NO more Bible, luv. JUST Christ. THAT'S the goal!



Okay, wait: I think you are confusing revelations with prophecy... which are NOT the same thing, not at all. A prophecy tells of what will occur in the future (and it done by someone IN the future sending BACK to those in HIS past something that will occur in the future for those to whom it is sent back to). A revelation merely reveals something that is hidden, obscured, covered over, not yet understood, etc. It is not necessarily prophecy or prediction, although it can help something that is yet future be understood.



Only to the extent He allows it, yes. Some are given things that are not FOR them and so they are also not given the understanding of it - that must wait until the one(s) for whom it is GIVEN arrives.



That's only partically accurate, dear one, as that's not actually what occurs, at least, in the REALITY of what we're talking about. Some either move forward too fast and so didn't wait patiently FOR full understanding... or perhaps DID "interpret" as they "could"... rather than allowing themselves to be GIVEN the accurate interpretation... or took credit FOR the understanding/interpretation, so as to have it be wrong later... or were only given part and were supposed to only deal with that part but somehow took that as the entire thing.

NONE "must" sometime interpret, though, luv. Interpretation belongs to God, who grants it through Christ, who gives it... through holy spirit. Now, if one is impatient, self-assuming, fearful, concerned about what others might think, needing to "prove" something (to themselves or others)... or things like these... then, yes, things might not be quite "on the money." IF, however, one recognizes that it is NOT from them but gives the glory for the understanding to God and Christ... ALWAYS... and patiently hears them OUT on the matter... including if they are told that what they HAVE received, although perhaps partial, is "sufficient for now"... then one can only share that part at that time. But that part will be right "on the money." There may be more to come later, but it won't necessarily change what was already given.



But isn't it? Isn't that WHY we have all of the various "versions" we DO have? Because someone reading it came to a different understanding or interpreted differently its verses, their meaning, even its message?? Some don't even contain the same books, dear one.



I can only answer for myself and my understanding is that it the same thing... except one (Koran) was written/compiled for (the children of) Ishmael (the father of Islam) and the other (the Bible that is the Torah), initially, for (the children of) Isaac (the father of Israel), both of whom descended from Abraham. I say initially, as to the Bible, because once Shiloh arrived... there was no longer a NEED for the Bible/Torah. Because the Law was FULFILLED in him so that from THAT point, HE was what Israel was supposed to be listening to and looking to/at. NOT the law on stone tablets... which had, by then, been copied onto vellum... and now, onto paper... in delible ink. It was, from that time, written on HEARTS.



No, dear one. God is love. CHRIST... is truth. They are NOT one and the same. Truth comes FROM love. Not love from truth (for there is truth that lacks love, as I shared before, but love cannot lack truth). I realize you and some others might think I'm talking semantics but truly, I am not. There IS a distinguishing.



YES!!! Which is WHY we KEEP trying to tell folks to go directly TO the Truth... and NOT to us! But even THAT is suspect, yes? WHY?? I will tell you why: it is what is IN one that keeps one from accepting this. If one lies THEMSELVES about such things... then one suspects that ALL will lie. One cannot FATHOM that someone MIGHT be telling the truth as to such a thing... going directly to Christ... because ONE has never done such a thing, has no knowledge of such a thing, does not BELIEVE in such a thing... and so suspects anyone who SAYS such a thing.

IF, however, one does NOT lie about such a thing, has THEMSELF done such a thing, DOES have knowledge of such a thing... and so BELIEVES such a thing... one would not find another saying to do so to be suspect. Yes?

And so what is the underlying thing, dear one? Fear. One fears... WHAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW! However, one does NOT fear... what one KNOWS! We... have no fear in going directly to Christ. Because we KNOW it... and know HIM. All we can do is tell others that they, too, can do it... if they just move past their fear. Because fear... casts DOUBT. And DOUBT... CANCELS OUT FAITH.



That's not true, dear one. As humans, we CAN overcome such. It's not necessarily EASY... but it can be done. We CAN be honest and truthful about these things... IF the Truth (that is Christ) is truly IN us. If we CAN'T... then Christ, the TRUTH... is not truly IN us. No matter what we say or want others to believe. There is no sharing between Light and Dark... between Christ, the Truth... and Beli'Jah'Eh... the "father" of the lie.



Yes! And such is expected, yes? But not with the Bible. People are SO sure that it is the "word of God" (yet, it isn't - there is only ONE Word of God... Christ... and EVEN the Bible says that!)... that any objection to it or something in it is considered blaspemy. Yet, Christ himself not only took exception to those who wrote some of what's in it... but WHAT they wrote, as well! And those of his day accused him of blasphemy for doing so. BUt WAS he a blasphemer, as they accused, for doing do? Or... was he telling the TRUTH... which TRUTH they didn't want to HEAR... and so put him to DEATH for?



Possible, but HIGHLY unlikely, for the very reasons you post!



YES!!!!!!! There IS!!!! "For false christ and false prophets will arise... TO MISLEAD... IF POSSIBLE... EVEN the chosen ones!" The Bible is NOT God's work, dear one. CHRIST... is God's work. The Bible, although CONTAINING scripture (which IS inspired of God)... is the MAIN "tool" being used to mislead that Body, dear one. IF, however, such ones would learn to walk BY FAITH... so as to LISTEN... to THEIR shepherd... the One GIVEN to them... APPOINTED by God Himself to LEAD them... and so follow HIS voice... rather than continue to walk by SIGHT... such as they, like Thomas, will "ONLY" believe IF THEY SEE... the Bible would lose its POWER over them!

May the day come when that is the case... when the BODY of Christ listen to and follow the HEAD of that Body... and not a book that contains some writings, some of which are accurate and some of which are not... "about" that One. May they ALL be given ears... to HEAR... when that One, the SPIRIT... and his Bride... say to THEM:

"COME! (to him!)... Take 'life's water'... which water HE pours out to them, NOT some book... which 'water' is the breath, blood, and seed of God... such that it makes them SONS of God... by MEANS of them having HIS breath, HIS blood, and HIS seed in them... FREE!"

Free... because there is no cost, not price, no wage that can be had with money. Only by FAITH... IN that One... which faith is DEMONSTRATED... by LISTENING... when he SPEAKS... can such "water" be "bought."



He IS, dear Pup! He IS! That is what we keep trying to TELL you dear, dear folks! He is ALIVE... and SPEAKS! That is why he is CALLED... the "WORD" of God!

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama (plays "Amazing Grace" theme - LOLOL!)

Shelby, I've read carefully everything that you've just posted above to our not-so-scary Puppy from the very warm place. I hope you won't mind my responding to one sectiion of your words to him.

Hellpuppy had written "There seems to be a subtle message of that those who go and check to make sure are lacking in faith or do not have "true" faith."

and you responded

Just to be clear, in case you were referring to me there in my comment earlier in this thread, and to avoid any further misunderstanding, I didn't and do not and have not ever questioned the faith of you or Tammy or anyone here. When I wrote "That isn't faith, Tammy" I wasn't referring to whether or not she had faith but responding to the one small point that she had raised above my post containing those words. I thought that was obvious to everyone. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone could possibly think I was questioning her faith or yours, or anyone's. I wouldn't do so. What I was saying was that the particular thing that she had raised was not in itself faith, and that is very different.

Obviously Tammy has faith! Obviously you have faith, and very strong faith at that....but so do I. And Tammy had responded to me



Thus calling into question my faith in Christ...actually saying outright, not even implying but actually stating "I know that you see faith in Christ, the Spirit, as a risk" which I have to tell you and can do so now after remaining quiet all yesterday due to the turn the thread was taking, that I found...and still find...that highly offensive. "I know that you see faith in Christ, the Spirit, a risk"!!! What an incrediblly judgemental thing to say! I pointed out that she didn't know that, she assumed it, but she wouldn't even acknowledge that. Of course it was an assumption! Of course Tammy doesn't know me, any more than I know her!

I don't see that anyone can or ought to try to judge the quality or depth of anyone's faith, because no-one, absolutely no-one, knows the extent of anyone's faith but God Himself. To try to do other than to leave it to God is appalling arrogance.

I find deeply offensive the constant derogatory comments about my church. I believe very strongly, along with millions of others, (I do not claim that fact as verification or justification, merely state a numeriical truth) that the Catholic Church is indeed the body of all believers, which for a start includes yourselves, because the word catholic means universal, a fact I have always known and stated, as has Paul Sacramento. I further believe that the particular branch of the catholic church to which I belong is part of the same universal church founded by Christ explicitly on Peter and the Apostles. To me, when you deigrate the church tomwhich I and others here belong, you are denigrating Christ's own church, and thus him. However, your intention is not to do that, and I am quite sure he understands, because, although he will come to judge the living and the dead, I do not think for one minute that he will judge us for what we didn't understand. Obviously, i believe with all my heart that you are wrong in your beliefs and assumptions on this, but equally, I believe and trust that your intentions are good, and God sees the heart. A good heart is all.

I also believe very strongly in the Holy Spirit, who is not the "nameless third person" of a trinity as descibed by Tammy, but the Holy Spirit, a Person every bit as much as Christ, the very same spirit that moved upon the face of the waters at the earth's creation, the very same spirit who moves each of us to prayer (or going to the source, as you prefer, or asking your Lord, as you prefer, but for me (and I am not alone) the word prayer covers all the whole multitude of ways in which a human being converses with the divine. For me it includes also very much more, but I won't go into that here for fear of taking up too much space.

In a sense, the details of wheher or not I received offence at what Tammy wrote, which I most certainly did., don't matter...though I can also see that if she genuinely didn't understand what I wrote and actually thought, against all the evidence to the contrary, that I was doubting her faith, then I can see that she also might have felt offence, and for that I am of course very sorry, but it was surely very clear that I was not and would never question hers or anyone's faith. Not ever. Take that as read, please. I just don't think like that. It is my faith that was questioned, my beliefs that were denigrated, and my church against which slights were thrown.

"I will listen to my Lord over you, and over what your church says." Although I say "my church" meaning the church to which I belong, it is my belief, and the belief of every catholic, passed down through the ages, that the Church is the one church that Christ founded. He wanted all his followers to be one. And Saint Paul made it clear that even those who had no knowledge of him but whose lives showed that in their hearts they were following him even without actually being acquainted with him, even those were in fact Christ's followers.

So, in short, Shelby, when you write as if you are defending your beliefs against thoose who are doubting your faith....not here, not on this forum, you are not, because I and everyone here I am quite sure came to this forum because they...and certainly I...saw the clear light of your faith and Tammy's faith and that of everyone else.

This is not a perfect world. Christ has his own ongoing relationship with each one of us. All my life, all my whole life, I have had a constant live relationship with him, so no wonder I strongly dislike being told, by someone who does not know me....especially since I made my own faith very clear openly on the forum and in private correspondence before I ever actually began an active participation here...by a person who had directly interqacted with me in the light of that knowledge...being told that "I know that you see faith in Christ, the Spirit, as a risk... without the confirmation of your church. "

Not surprising. Not surprising. All day yesterday I sat back. Had you not written as you just have to the puppydog I might have continued silent. But Shelby, you surely know hoow greatly i see and respect your own faith. it would just be so nice of you could also recognise the faith of those of us here who may not share your own particular beliefs and practices in detail but who nonethless have made their own statement by walking with the electronic feet, so to speak, and joining you here. I, we, are not against you, but for you. We all follow Chriist, however immperfectly. he teaches you one way. He teaches me another.

And, for what its worth, Tammy, I dpo not and never ever have seen " faith in Christ, the Spirit, as a risk... without the confirmation of your church." And I would never say such a thing to you or anyone here.

What's more, I fiirmly and strongly believe that the church is Christ's own church, far transcending the now, full of him, full of the Holy Spirit, which I do not believe is the same as him, because I know that not to be true, (yes, from my own direct experience, and yet both are part of the one God in unity with the father, in Love, but because you do not belieive that I respect completely your right, al;l of you who believe otherwiise, and I would not and do not question that.

I live in country of religious toleration. I may not be a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Hindu but I recognise that they are all part of mankind's yearning for God, and it is not for me to judge or criticise any faith nor anyone's faith in God however they see Him. It would just be lovely if that same toleration could find itself just a little bit more onto here.

Oh, and by the way, for the record, especially, Tammy, since you called my approach to the Bible in question, apparently assuming that I would think it all inspired, no, I do not and never have. To me, that would be obvious to anyone. I am not a Jehovah's Witness and never did fully share their beliefs. I have never been a Bible-based Protestant. I am a researcher, a scholar. To me, it is perfectly evident that the Bible is part history, part poetry, part the attempts of men a very long time ago to understand the divine, and part very definitely inspired, and most of it the result of men doing their best to write what God even then was moving them to write...but always, always God's input is filtered through each writer, just as your own inoput here, everyone, is filtered through your own individual minds. God has to work with whatever each of our minds can take, through barriers of langiage, learning, scholarship or lack of it, scholarship being sometimes more of a hindrance than a help, for David was just a shepherd boy, and Christ speaks individually to each person, and so his words to each are exactly that, individual, and filtered in just the same way.

The Bible anyway, as Shelby already pointed out, is a collection of assorted writings, and just those deemed worthy of inclusion by some men. my Bible contains bits not in your Bible...all it means is that different men said "yes, this is OK", while another group disagreed. But overall, the WHOLE Bible is worthy at the very leasty of attentikon and respect, as even some writings that didn't appear to make the grade are (like the so-called Gospel of Thomas)...worthy at least of attention and respect, always remembering that some have doubts which may be vaid....and remembering that all Bible passages and writings were not written on e acomputer, were not copied and pasted, but were laboriously copied and written by hand over hundreds and hundreds of years, and no matter how carefully the copying was done, mistakes and differences may, will, have crept in.

So, yes, done with God's input or at least men's response to God's input, very often, less so with the history but even then to a degreee....but absolutely not "inspired" in the sense that this cannot be subjected to textual criticism or must not ever be questioned. Most is right. Some bits may not be word for word. And some is symbolic and was never ever meant to be taken literally.

Good morning, Char. I must respond to what you have stated. But first i must say that yes, you are indeed questioning my faith. You are telling me that I should not listen to Christ over the bible, that He would not be the one speaking to me if something He told me was different than something said in the bible. Something that makes no sense to me in light of what you wrote, that you do not believe the entire bible to be inspired or inerrant. So I am confused.



... without the confirmation of the church. Perhaps I should have added, including their (the rcc) interpretation of what is written in the bible.

I did not say that to insult you at all. But simply following everything that you have said to me. Questioning my reliance upon what you have been saying is an 'internal dialogue', or my own judgment, telling me that this is wrong to do so if that is in conflict with something written. That is what you have been saying through this entire thread... when I have been saying that I am not relying upon an 'internal dialogue' or my own judgment, but upon Christ to tell me the truth.

So that you are saying that it IS a risk to do what i am doing (which I know is to rely upon the Spirit... but that you think is me relying upon my own judgment).

If I am mistaken, then i apologize, but please tell me where i am mistaken?



I did acknowledge it. In a way that I hoped you would recognize all the assumptions that you were making about me. I should have explained further though, as I did above, so that you can correct any error in my thinking there. Please do so now.




I did not make constant derogatory comments about your church. I did however respond to your questioning my faith. I can accept you believing that I am wrong. Can you accept the same?

Please read this thread through. You questioned my faith. You may not think that you did... and so did it in ignorance as you are claiming that some of us are doing above... but you DID. When you said that I could not be hearing from Christ if He is telling me something that is not the same as what is in the bible.

All I did was answer the OP. I even tried to avoid this back and forth on the first response I gave you, not responding to what i knew you were actually saying, and instead simply stating the truth of what i was originally saying.

But you pressed. No, tammy, you are not hearing Christ IF Christ is saying that to you. (This is not to say that I believe you are saying I am not ever hearing Christ... only that you think in those instances that I am not hearing Christ. But Char, He is the same One speaking to me, in each instance.)



Nameless third person... meaning the third person in the trinity has no name. That is just a fact, right?



I was not offended. I know what you think about this already; we have had this discussion before, so I am not surprised. But you WERE calling my faith into question, because you WERE saying that I could NOT be hearing what I said i heard; that it could not be Christ, but must be my own voice; my own inner dialogue; my own judgment.

I answered the questions you asked of me. Your faith was not questioned except in comparison to the questioning you did of my faith.



If you put the whole quote that i said in there, it would be more clear. Because I added that I would also not believe the wts, or the lutherans, or the calvinists, over my Lord. When I said your church, I meant the RCC. Certainly, the many different churches out there do not all consider themselves one, and some are diametrically opposed to others.

You also, when I answered thus, said 'good'. Maybe then you will think.

That is not insulting? That perhaps I am not thinking to begin with?



And what do you call it, then... you telling me that I am not hearing Him when He tells me something that is against what the RCC teaches? Are you not questioning my faith then, because it does not comport with your own? I did not go after your faith, or you, or even the RCC. You came and told me that I was wrong to put my faith in what I heard, and shared... because you think that is wrong.



Hmm. Perhaps you might find it easier to understand if I said that you think putting faith in what is heard from the Spirit as a risk... without the confirmation from the church/bible/etc?




Char, I completely respect your right to believe as you choose also. But why is you questioning me and my faith... okay? But me doing the same to you regarding the RCC, not okay? You could have said, I disagree here, Tammy with what you have said. But you did not. You kept at me over it, calling it wrong, worrisome, silly, absurd, mistaken, etc.

Those things are okay, but what i said to you is not?



I think you need to take a second look at this thread then.



I did not assume it. I ASKED you about it. Because if it is not all inspired, then what is the issue with me saying that i would listen to my Lord OVER something that is not even inspired?



I never thought you did think that... until this thread. Until you made an issue with my answer to the OP, that I would listen to my Lord, first and foremost, to know whether something was or was not inspired.



If a person speaks exactly what has been heard... then what is the filter?

If a person interprets what has been heard... then I agree, what has been heard has been relayed according to their individual filter. THAT right there, is the risk that I was referring to that you see in simply putting faith in Christ and believing HIM and what HE says. Without checks and balances such as the RCC teachings or the written word, you consider that a risk.


But that is why we do not listen to what others tell us, but rather by what Christ tells us. So that we aren't hearing something through 'their' possible filter. We are listening to HIM.



If you understand this... then again... I do not understand you issue with my answer to the OP. Why listen to something that has some errors... OVER... listening to the Spirit of Truth, who is Christ?


I truly do not understand your issue with what i said, in light of what you have said here.

Peace,
tammy

I didn't say you shouldn't listen to Christ over the Bible.

I said actually that you shouldn't, basically, rely on your own judgement, or, more explicitly, your own perception of what you believe he said to you. Not in the sense that to do so would be morally wrong, but in the sense that your understanding would not necessarily be the actual (final, definite) truth.

I did not question your faith. I do not question anyone's faith. How could I? I don't "know" anyone's faith. I know only my own. I, and God. Only you and God know yours.

I am not doubting your word. I merely called into question the quality of your judgement, in respect of what you stated. What's more, I repeatedly stated that your faith wasn't even under discussion! I was merely speaking of estimating the accuracy of the Bible.

Personally, although my life outside motherhood has always been occupied with academic research, I would not even begin to judge the Bible's accuracy. I would not consider myself qualified to do so.

Fortunately, we have God's own words in many explicit places throughout the Bible, and he is daily present to all who choose to meet and receive him.

You did, emphatically and explicitly, question and denigrate my own faith. But I do not bear a grudge, and although I think what you did and that judgemental and frankly bigoted attitude highly regrettable, what's done is done and I suggest we treat it as water under the bridge and move on. You do not understand that the Church is Christ's own church, in which he is present in many and varied ways. You don't receive him in that way, but in your own way, so that's great. I'm not judging it. It would just be lovely if you could do likewise.

Char, this is what I said. This is ALL I said:



That is what you took issue with. Right from the start. I would listen to Christ (who is the Spirit) over anything and anyone else.

Now you are saying this:



Kind of at a loss here, Char.

Because that is all I said... that I would listen to Christ over the bible, or anything and anyone else... and that is what you took issue with from the very start of the thread so that we are now here. If you did not take issue with that... then we would not be here now. I would have just given my answer, and that would be the end of it.

So it is my faith you questioned... because while I said that I would listen to Christ, you said that this would be me listening to my own judgment, perception, understanding:



Now, Char, I do not for a moment have any problem with anyone questioning anything I ever state. Indeed... do NOT take my word for anything. DO question. DO go to our Lord and ask HIM for the truth. I sure don't take anyone else's word for anything they say, even if they say it is from Him. Go, instead, to CHRIST... and ask HIM for the truth of a matter; any matter. Including on this matter between us.

Which is all I said in answer to the OP as well, as for what I would do.

I had more written, but I am not sure that I should continue in the back and forth when the record is laid out there for anyone to see.
I'll post this, and perhaps get to the rest in a bit.

Peace,
tammy

I don't mind at all, dear Char (peace to you!); however, while you may have read what I posted "carefully", I am not sure you did so accurately. We shall see.





He did and I did, yes, dear one.



You have and you do, dear Char. Truly. I realize... MOST of realize... that you don't realize that... but that is EXACTLY what you are doing. That's what I TRIED to tell you before. For example, when I posted about attending the Memorial. I told you WHY... and Who it was that told me to do so. I shared with you that I was going... based on MY faith in the voice of the One who was directing me. I shared with you that MY faith told me it was Christ who was instructing me and Christ I was obeying. You disputed that. Hence, you questioned MY faith. On that issue and a few since. You have questioned OTHERS' faith... that tells THEM that it IS Christ who is speaking to them and what he is saying. We are ALL saying that it is our FAITH that allows us to hear. Yet, you question that. You are, dear one, absolutely questioning others' faith. Ab-so-lute-ly.



Let's stick to the truth, shall we, you and I... because that's what WE do? When you wrote, "That isn't faith, Tammy," you meant that WHATEVER the reference was to... wasn't faith. And it wasn't a small point. She explained. You dismissed her explanation.



You're not being truthful, dear Char. Now, I realize that perhaps that is not what you MEANT to do (or perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that that is not what you meant to), or that such might not have occurred to you... but I have come to know that you WOULD do so. You have. You still are. Even after our last agreement NOT to do so. You're just trying to do it "differently." What you may not see is that it is NOT different - it is EXACTLY the same thing you did to dear Loz (peace!). I mean, the first thing I thought when I read your comments was, "She's going after dear Tammy's faith, now?? What is UP with that??!!" Really. That's exactly what I thought.

And I'm not sure, but it could be that dear HP (peace!) thought so, too. Although, his words (to the effect) "Here we go again" MAY have been that he thought Tammy or I were questioning others'. Hopefully, I cleared that up for him. If not, a review of the posts should do so... if one reads them without allowing their own paradigms to rule but just as they are stated.



Dear Char... READ WHAT YOU JUST STATED. It's okay for YOU to say what is not "faith"... but not another? Goodness, if dear Tec had made such a comment to YOU... she would have absolutely been accused of attacking your faith, not just questioning it. Although, dear Sab (peace!) does like her, so maybe not.

But just so we're all clear, why is it NOT faith?



And where, pray tell, dear one, did dear Tammy even mention you... OR your faith? YOU made mention as to HERS; not the other way around.



Yes, she posted that...



This is what makes me sometimes go "Hmmmmm..." with you, dear Char, because that's not what she did at ALL. For SOME reason YOU only saw PART of the statement. For some reason you read the first part, got to the comma... and apparently STOPPED... BEFORE you paid heed to the QUALIFIER. She stated that you see it thus "without the confirmation of your church." And YOU are the one who had told us that that is so, dear one.

But... for some reason... you missed that. As I am learning you often do and I have tried to bring to your attention: you seem to miss/forget the things YOU state/claim/tell us. And when we refer back to it you either deny it, deny that you stated it, ignore when WE state it, overlook it... or, like, here, leave it out altogether. That's not being TRUTHFUL, dear Char.



And this is what I "see" occurring here: OUR faith takes us beyond things like institutionalized religion, clergy heirarchies, governing bodies, popes, bibles, etc. Even scripture. Beyond... so that WE can approach... and hear Christ himself speak to us. Directly. NOT in our heads but through our blood and in our ears. And we openly profess that. YOUR faith, while allowing you to believe IN Christ, and hear God speak to you "in effect" but through some kind of "voice" that you can't fully explain and don't believe is audible or outside of yourself but in your head... does not occur the same way. And YOU take issue with OUR saying what OUR faith does... and, along with others... keep TRYING to say that profession of OUR faith is... as dear HP (peace!) put it... "a subtle way of saying that one lacks faith." But you did not hear us SAY that - YOU are contriving that. In YOUR hearts. NOT from OUR hearts OR mouths.

YOU are perceiving an insinuation that wasn't made. I KNOW this as to ME... because I don't MAKE such insinuations: if one's faith is lacking, I will outrightly STATE that. Because I can only KNOW... and so STATE it... if my Lord TELLS me that it is so and to state it.



Dear, dear Char. By now you should know where most here stand with regard to the RCC... or ANY institutionalized religion. We have not HIDDEN that from you or from anyone! Just as YOU have not hidden YOUR regard for the WTBTS from any HERE. Yes? There are some here who might find YOUR denigration of the WTBTS JUST as offensive. But that doesn't stop YOU... does it? No? Why? Because your feelings about are STRONG... AND you feel justified in stating them, yes? Even after less than 3 years' association. You had ENOUGH association to KNOW that they are imposters. Yet, some here have had FAR more association with the RCC than that... yet, you deny them THEIR feelings. How is that? Isn't that hypocrisy?

You want your form of worship to be accepted, yet you denigrate another form. If YOU have grounds to denigrate the WTBTS, should you not consider that others might have grounds to denigrate another form, as well? That it just so happens to be YOUR form... means what? I means what I tried to tell you before: defend it, if you can... without taking offense. Just as WE are expected to do as to OUR form of faith and worship. I could have been "deeply offended" when you questioned "why in the world" I would attend a WTBTS Memorial and expressed how "appalled" you were. Rather, I tried to EXPLAIN to you why I would: MY faith. And then I shared with you how something YOU do in YOUR worship was confusing to ME... BUT... that our differences didn't NEED to stand between us.

Here's what you're missing, dear Char: if you want to take issue with OUR faith and OUR form of worship... which you ROUTINELY do, now... then how can you take issue and be offended when someone takes issue with YOURS?

Do yo NOT SEE?



If you TRULY BELIEVE that... then WHY KEEP TAKING OFFENSE?? Why do you assume that NO ONE can... or will... take exception to YOUR form of worship? Surely, you realize that not everyone IS "catholic"... right?



What is that Spirit's name, dear one? You know of him/it because of the verse to go baptizing "in the name of" the Holy Spirit. WHAT is the NAME of the HOLY SPIRIT?



First, it is NOT the same as the spirit, holy spirit, that moved upon the face of the waters at earth's creation, dear one. THAT... was GOD's spirit. God, the MOST HOLY One of Israel... JAH of Armies... Who IS holy... and so His SPIRIT would be holy. We are NOW talking about The Holy Spirit. Which Paul wrote (and my Lord has confirmed for ME) is Christ. Now, you ask dear Tammy as to taking what she hears over what is written in the Bible. Okay... the BIBLE says that Christ IS THE SPIRIT. Why do you ignore that?????



But you do, dear Char. You truly do. We don't take offense that you DO: we expect it. We are TOLD to expect it. it is YOU who takes offense when you believe YOUR faith is being questioned, dear one. Even though it isn't.



Dear Char, it is not the questioning of your faith that gets to you. It is the questioning of your "church." Which you INTERPRET as a questioning of your faith. Not necessarily the same thing, though, luv.



Okay, so that's that YOU believe. It's not what dear Tammy or I believe, though. I also doubt that it's the belief of the, say, the Rabbi in your neighborhood. Or, say, the Iman at the local mosque. Or, perhaps, the pastor at the nearest Baptist church. So what? Are you offended by THEM? No? Why? Because what they say in their "church" is understandable? Have you forgotten the name of this forum, dear Char? It is NOT "xjwsfortheRCC", dear one. It is "xjwsforChrist." CHRIST. And so you find those here who profess to hearing Christ. Yet... you take exception to that. Do you SEE?



He did. You'll find no argument about that among US, dear one. We are not a sect. We don't have a leader other than him. We don't listen to anyone other than him. We don't follow anyone but him. We don't trust in the interpretations or knowlege of anyone but him. And... we all put our faith in him... and the holy spirit he promised and has given us... which is what MAKES us one. What do you attribute all the Bible versions... and religious sects/institutions... to? Him? Surely, you don't think him divided, do you? Yet, if they are all ONE... why do they call themselves by different identities? "I am an ROMAN Catholic!" "I am an ORTHODOX Catholic!" "I am an Anglican!" "I am a Baptist!" "I am a Calvinist!" "I am a Coptic christian!" "I am a Methodist christian!" "WE follow Peter!" "We follow Paul!" "We, Apollos!"

What you hear US saying, dear one, is that we are christians, "chosen/anointed" people... and the ONLY One we follow and listen to... is Christ. NO ONE... and NOTHING else. As a professed "christian," why is that SO hard to YOU to grasp?



I am not sure Paul made that "clear," dear one. At least, that's NOT what he said to the Thessalonians. To the contrary, actually:

"He will come amid flaming fire; he will impose a penalty on those who do not acknowledge God and refuse to accept the gospel of our Lord [Jesus]"? 2 Thessalonians 1:8

How can one acknowledge one they NO knowledge OF??



Well, we aren't as much as perhaps previously, dear Char... but we still are from time to time. And, unfortunately, while you may not recognize it, you are at the forefront of "questioning" it. Now, don't get me wrong: you are more than entitled TO question it - we don't mind. Because we CAN make a defense. But to question it... then take offense when YOURS is questioned... or when you THINK it is being so, but it isn't... well, you might want to look at what that's all about with you, dear one.



But... you do, dear Char. Let me help you see that: can you, right here, right now, say that you could... WOULD... walk away from the RCC if you learned that it was NOT in union with Christ? Now, I think you can, as you did once. Yet, you DENY that you did. But let's say you learned... AGAIN... that "something wasn't right", so that you left... to seek, I dunno... comraderie of spirit??... somewhere else? Again, I think you could. BUT... YOU have now said, "No, NEVER! I will NEVER leave again!" Remember? Not, "So long as I see nothing to indicate an opposition to Christ, I will never leave." Nope... you said "never again." To WHOM and WHAT, then, are you TRULY loyal? Think, dear one... and hard... before you respond. No, "But I didn't mean," or "That's not what I said." It is... and you were adamant that we understood you MEANT it.



I DID recognize that, dear Char!! I DID! I didn't have a problem with our "differences" - YOU did! I told that I asked others to NOT take issue with your faith or association. And I have shared with you MANY times that I asked about you and was told you are my sister. I did NOT raise the issue of the RCC - YOU raised the issue as to OUR faith, incluing MINE. YOU are the one who refuses to see "who" it is that has an issue with "who's" faith, dear one! YOU took issue with dear Loz's profession of HER faith... and NOW you're doing so with dear Tammy. And... you have done so with me, yes, but not as blatantly... or unkindly. YOU are the one who isn't "seeing" what is TRULY going on here, dear one.



I will let dear Tammy respond to that, dear Char, except to say that we are all grown ups, here... and that YOU might not say something to one does not mean someone else won't. This isn't a place were PC is necessary. We would MUCH rather have truth.



Dear Char... dear one, WE are not on an RCC forum declaring what we believe to be "right" and what those there believe to be "wrong." You have it backward, luv. Truly. Believe what you wish to. But do not suppose you can come to an "xjwsFORChrist" (notice, FOR Christ... not FOR the RCC, the WTBTS, the Baptists, the Mormons, the Hindus, the Muslimg... or what have you)... and take issue with our PROFESSIONS as TO our faith in Christ. Wrong forum, luv.

If you are FOR Christ, then say that. If you are AGAINST Christ, be prepared for comment. If you are FOR the RCC, say that... but also be prepared, when you take issue with another's faith IN CHRIST ALONE, that YOUR faith in the RCC will be commented on. That's really all that's occurring.

If you are looking for support for the RCC... or "catholicism"... you're probably not going to find a lot of it here, dear one. That's just the God's-honest truth. You will people FOR Christ, which is as the name of the site suggests. To take issue when such ones PROMOTE Christ... even over the Bible... make no sense, really.



Oh, WOULD that that would occur! Can we start with YOU not taking issue with others' faith when they say what THEIR faith TELLS them hear... FROM Christ?? Can we start THERE, I mean, since that is the PURPOSE... of THIS particularly site... to be able to declare... FREELY... what is heart... without ALL of the "stuff"?

I mean, if you TRULY are [religiously] tolerant... and YOU start "tolerating" some HERE a little BETTER?? As all tolerated YOU when you arrived, although KNOWING we didn't believe totally the same????



Well, if THAT don't blow the whole "the Bible is inspired" myth out of the water once and for all... at least, for those involved in THIS discussion... So, we shouldn't even have to DEBATE anymore, yes, whether the Bible should be listened to over Christ?



Ummmm... dear Char... I don't think you realize it... or mean to... but you really are contradicting yourself. It's a book, luv. Not God. Not Christ. Not God's Word. Not holy spirit. Any one book can be separated from all the others. It's made of wood pulp. And although we can adorn it with gold and put a cross on the front and call it "holy"... it really is nothing more than a book. Really.



Well, goodness, girl! All THAT to say that we agree the Bible isn't inspired??

Dear, dear Char - IF you faith (in the RCC) is right... then there is NO NEED to take offense with others question it. Either it's right... and will stand... or it isn't, in which case, IF you have faith in HIM, Christ... the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... WILL lead you out. Again. Without a doubt. Just don't be unwilling to LISTEN, so as to HEAR... so as to FOLLOW him if/when he does. Unlike the Jews of the first century, who could NOT believe that their precious had been abandoned or would every be desecrated... be ready, luv, as dear Lot had to be... as Israel had to be... to leave everything behind... and flee... to the mountain(s)... should that need arise. Not saying it will. Just sayin'... it might... and so one should be ready. Just in case.

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama
Again, peace to you!

You'll find no argument about that among US, dear one. We are not a sect. We don't have a leader other than him. We don't listen to anyone other than him. We don't follow anyone but him. We don't trust in the interpretations or knowlege of anyone but him. And... we all put our faith in him... and the holy spirit he promised and has given us... which is what MAKES us one. What do you attribute all the Bible versions... and religious sects/institutions... to? Him? Surely, you don't think him divided, do you? Yet, if they are all ONE... why do they call themselves by different identities? "I am an ROMAN Catholic!" "I am an ORTHODOX Catholic!" "I am an Anglican!" "I am a Baptist!" "I am a Calvinist!" "I am a Coptic christian!" "I am a Methodist christian!" "WE follow Peter!" "We follow Paul!" "We, Apollos!"

What you hear US saying, dear one, is that we are christians, "chosen/anointed" people... and the ONLY One we follow and listen to... is Christ. NO ONE... and NOTHING else. As a professed "christian," why is that SO hard to YOU to grasp?



Couldn't have said it better myself, LOL !!!

Thanks Shelby.

Nothing and noone else can measure up to CHRIST and CHRIST alone.
And he is truly enough for ME!

Love to you all
Justmom

Oye lol

I'm much simpler than what is seen

In no particular order:

No one called anybody stupid for believing the Bible to not be the inspired word. I was referring to Zoe's post where she used that description



Revelation meaning new information or understanding not as in prophecy

Here we go again as in the same topic/exchange over and over again

No offense taken about the faith thing. I was responding to this passage by Shelby. I bolded the portions I was replying to


And this one




I had to read the following a few times to understand what was being said.

AGuest typed:


And I still have to read this over again because I'm honestly not certain and please do correct me if I am mistaken let me try to paraphrase...

I'm paraphrasing here. Tell me if this is correct:

"Puppy you are wrong because despite what you typed you do see it as a competition and are offended. You may not think you are offended but I know you are offended because you are defensive. No one here mentioned anything about a lack of faith.

I see that you are taking Chariko's side because I haven't seen you address her as you have addressed others. You and Chariko support questioning the faith of others but then cry foul when your faiths are questioned. And puppy you need to look inside yourself if you dare, to find the truth"


If the paraphrase is correct then I will respond. If I'm off then please type it again and I will try to respond.

_________________
To fear me is to love me....