geisha779

Hi Don't Worry be Happy, You said--- at present, i place great value and confidence in the millions of licensed, professional psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, licensed clinical social workers,and the various other disciplines at work in our mental health care system.........i respect them greatly because of the incredible demands and stressors their chosen fields put on them personally, as well as their loved ones.........i respect them for doing their best to help those who need their services, in spite of severe "underfunding" in their areas of expertise........i have watched them touch the untouchable, reach the unreachable, and minster to the sick and suffering........i have rejoiced at their successes, and i have sorrowed with them at their failures.........i have also witnessed them stare down some of the most vile, insanely evil, and despicable characters you'd ever imagine could remain living........and do so non-judgementally and objectively despite the personal revulsion of what they're looking at!........i never saw vic, or twi, or any of twi's "trustees" through the years ever come close to any of that!!..........imo, twi stood diametrically opposed to professional, therapeutic relationships, then and now!...........but i never thought, nor do i think today, that god and/or jesus opposes them................what do you think? I agree so much with this statement. My husband is a Crisis Counselor at a Clinical Support facility. He now only works per diem, but you know how that can go-- fulltime if you want it. My son has a radio show that deals with current events and ministries in the Christian Sphere--he did a show on a group called "To Write Love on Her Arms" It was so interesting and since he was constantly wearing a shirt that said "To Write Love on Her Arms" we were interested in finding out more--after his show--which was amazing(Proud Mamma), we looked into it a bit more. This group offers support and services to CUTTERS. Shortly after this, my husband got a very serious call from a young cutter X. He had at his fingertips all the services he needed to help X, because of this Christian group, who put together a great list of Christian AND Secular groups that work in this field. He also prayed with X--something he rarely does on the phone--but this was a serious situation.He was moved to pray with her permission, and he was able to calm X--in ways that combined the love God has for X and the hope of services out there-- GOOD Christian ministries employ sound psychiatric services--the two are not mutually exclusive. Most people, Christian and Secular, that work in these fields at the local level --- the ones I know---are loving, caring souls--not in it for any glory---what a burn-out job it can be. My mom was a Psychiatric Nurse most of her 30 years nursing. She was choked-threatened, and thrown around more than once--and still went to work everyday loving the clients. --It is insanity what TWI did to people. It has taken years for hubby and I to recover and we still have issues that crop up--boundries being one we are still dealing with. BTW--I remember you FONDLY. I only dealt with you a few times, but you stood out to me as kind and genuine. I remember dealing with JAL at Emporia for the Advanced Class-VP was there and I had a run in with him too. Then I came back to the WOW field and had to call you. Honestly, I remember thinking of the differences between you all. I couldn't get off the phone--you were so interested in my WOW time. I almost told you about what happened at Emporia, but stopped myself. I figured I just wasn't spiritual enough. We were all victims of a sick cult--but I want you to know--you were very kind to me.

The pot calling the kettle huh? You really wanna know what prompted me--or are you just name calling? It was you! I was thinking of you and others here who are so limited in their understanding of Christians and the world we dwell in that I said --that's it. It's been implied I am stupid==misguided and foolish for my belief in Christ--can't stand it that we claim we know--have faith in the unseen and provide answers through Jesus Christ to those seeking--too bad--I figured you would crawl out of the woodwork. Oh, and I see I am the arrogant one---not old Mr P Mosh--who implied I was a daydreamer right? Typical. I have to go know-I am going to stand on a street corner in my plain servicable clothes and pass out tracts--while carrying a sign that says "The End is Near" Too busy to play anymore. I wasn't going to mention this--but I am having a hard time turning the other cheek lately. A friend of mine was executed a week and a half ago--shot in the head in front of his wife and 3 small kids. Why? Because he was so cocksure of Christ--We just put a few of our friends on a plane to go care for the family. Then they are going to an orphan camp to bring electricity in for the abandoned kids in the same country.Christians provide for these kids--not the government. So please don't talk to me of arrogance--it is pretty arrogant to take anothers life--because they believe in Christ. Happens everyday in this world. You have no clue.

Oh what the heck. Sorry to the guy who started this thread--I won't tarry. I see no evidence of this. So what? Creation Science isn't filled with a bunch of evangelical bumpkins--many of these guys are not Christian--same goes for intellegent designers. Nonevolutionary scientists think the theory of evolution is bad science--they are not out to prove or disprove God???????The theory of "abrupt appearance" is scientific. But even so--theistic science is not an oxymoron. Christians have grown brains--who knew?? I disagree here as well, because the theory of relativity has nothing to do with the big bang, and much less proving any religious texts. Again, I said it supported the idea of a Genesis Style creation. Why? because his theory meant the universe had a beginning. It was believed to be static until Einsteins theory. The law of causality tells us--it had a cause. You may not like what I consider the cause--but too bad. The law of thermodynamics tells us it will have an end. Sound familar--we have heard an explanation for this somewhere??? Oh yeah--I am the Alpha and the Omega--through Him all things were made. . . . That is why Einstein didn't like it and it was repugnent to Arthur Eddington. He went looking for a loophole. What do you think all the debate is about--people wrap religion up in science everyday--friends of mine tour the country debating this stuff at universities all the time--do I need to call and tell them to stop because you said we can't do it?? On it My point in raising the questions was to suggest that there are many theories, but there are no ways to prove what exists outside of our universe, and what happened before the big bang, or how it came to pass. If you want to attribute it to "intelligent design" then that is your choice, but it is nothing more than an opinion. It can't be wrapped up in the name of science. Let me see if I can get Ben Stein on the phone and have him pull his new documentary?? Here's another Einstein quote: You have to take Einstein's beliefs in context. He was essentially an atheist. In the text your quote comes from, he gives his definition of religion, along with some other things I will put in bold to give better context and relate back to the thread at hand: You can see that he clearly defines religion not as a supernatural thing, but a way human beings think to keep ourselves within a moral framework. By his definition, atheists can be "religious" too, as can anyone who simply wants to work for the betterment of mankind. EINSTEIN was a PANTHEIST!!! What is the chapter and verse that talks about the planets having an elliptical orbit? HUH??????? They only appear that way to religious people that want them to be theistic. The term "god" can have many different meanings. To many asian religions, gods are just spirits that live in everything. To scientists like Einstein or Sagan, it is a shortcut for discussing nature. There are many different ideas about what gods are, so you can't really apply your beliefs to someone who uses the word without verifying first that they believe what you do. In the case of Einstein, it's easy to see that he didn't believe as you do. Did you read the book I was talking about-???God and the Astronomers---the guy who wrote it was an agnostic. My point was his theistic quotes were so out of character they were intriguing. Doctors have a much better track record than praying does. It seems like every few months you hear about a lawsuit from where some person dies because their family or religious group prohibits seeking medical care and instead wants to pray around them. Studies have also shown that the "power of prayer" serves no better than the power of "thinking positive" without praying. Additionally, the proponents of basically all major religious claim that people have been healed by their faith. What's to say that they didn't just get better through natural means, but you all attribute it to your religions? Let's play dueling "Studies" because I can find one that opposes yours for almost anything--studies have shown??PLEAASSSSEEEEE!!Oh and I remember to pray for my doctor--and the ones who saved my husbands life last year. Doesn't change the fact I have witnessed a spontaneous healing. Sorry. Anyway, I don't mean to appear hostile to your religious beliefs, but I don't believe it, and I think you're incorrect about your attributions of scientific proof of Christianity. Still, I don't mean to be mean towards you, so don't take this post personally. I am debating ideas instead of people. Let's see--you imply I am a daydreamer--tell me I don't know what I am talking about when I discuss my faith and its relationship to science--but don't take it personally--dude it doesn't get more personal

Thanks for the heasds up--always looking for a good read, Hi Mr Mosh Sorry I have NO interest in derailing this thread. Chill out dude--my faith in Christ is no threat to your well being. You may not have a clue what is outside the universe---but speak for yourself---I do. That seems to set your teeth on edge. ?? A Christian with an opinion. Too bad. Write me off as a daydreamer--roll your eyes--but spare me your enlightenment. Don't expect me to fill you in on the irritating facts. I have a life--and no interest in what you believe. I was asked what I would say--I said it--that ends my part of the discussion--unless something else catches my fancy--then this annoying Christian with an opinion might just speak up again. Bet you spent alot of time on that post--huh?

The problem is that you are trying to use science to justify your religious beliefs. Intellegent design and creationism are not based on the bible----they are consistent with it. Even if we could prove that everything was created (which only creationists believe based on opinion and faith, not science), there's nothing to say it wasn't created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodly Appendages.) Well, I hate to tell you this, but. . . . . . . . . . what do you think shook Einstein so much? He called it his greatest blunder--the theory of relaitivity--because. . . . why? It meant the universe was not static--it had a beginning. After going to Mount Wilson to look through Hubbles telescope--at the EVER EXPANDING universe--Einstein said--he wanted to know how God did it--Science does support a beginning--but if you or Richard Dawkins want to say it was aliens who seeded the planet--or "flying spaghetti monsters" be my guest. Just because we don't know what exists outside of our universe, or prior to the big bang, that doesn't mean it was created by gods, or more specifically, it doesn't prove anything of the bible to be true. I said science supports the bible's Genesis style creation narrative--and it does. I didn't make it up. There's also nothing to say that the universe isn't part of a cycle where universes explode, then collapse, then explode again, each with different physics and life happening differently each time. There are a lot of ideas out there, with no real answers and as of yet no way to know. This is called the Cosmic Rebound Theory and there is a bit that has caused many to discard it. There is no evidence for a Big Bang X infinity. There is a question of enough matter in the universe to pull everything back together over and over again. The universe seems to be expanding indefinitly. It also contradicts The Law of Thermodynamics --- assuming no energy would be lost with each contraction. I am not a "New Earth" kinda girl--why are we still here, if we were contracting and expanding? What caused the first big bang if this theory is true? We still have an original Big Bang and the idea of creation. What I do know, however, is that as our knowledge of science grows, our need for religion diminishes. We no longer believe that Zeus is throwing lightning spears at us when there is a thunder storm, we understand how the particles are charged in the clouds differently from the particles near the ground, and that they follow the laws of physics. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. I didn't say that Albert Einstein did. I just like it. Where did the "Law of Physics" come from? The flying Spaghetti Monster? Must be a very intellegent designer? We no longer believe the Earth is flat, that orbits of the planets are perfect circles, that the Earth is the center of the solar system, or any of the other "scientific" things the church told us in the past. Good! They should have read their bibles! As we discover the truth of nature and the universe, our religious beliefs change Yes -- agnostic astronomers are writing theistic quotations. We become less focused on religion as a real physical thing, and more of it as an abstract philosophical belief system. That's why the Yahweh of the old testament physically appeared in front of Moses, and why today's Christians talk about prayer and daydreams as the source of talking to their god. Except, I have seen people actually healed in the name of Jesus--and MANY real physical unexplainables--but hey. . . . call me a daydreamer--you could have said worse.

Hi oenophile, how nice to talk to you!! Yes, I would have to say we would be unjustified in our disbelief of certain biblical narratives---or recheck the mounting evidence.:) If you and I can agree on a few things it would be GREAT!! I bet you anything that you are familar with the big bang theory? Putting aside the "Fudge Factor" and looking at the theory of relativity--Einstein--Arthur Eddington--no loophole. The expanding universe--Willem de Sitter--Hubbel checking it out---yada yada--The law of causality--big bang--beginning--a cause. The law of thermodynamics--an end. In other words-- We have something instead of nothing? Created--boom there it was, out of nothing--all you and I know--was once made. God and the Astronomers is a great book to look at on this stuff-written by an agnostic BTW. The idea of a Genesis style creation supported by science!! This stuff is still so way over my little right-brained mind. Robert Jastrow the agnostic who wrote the book I mentioned ended it with this: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Quantum Physics doesn't explain it away--The Cosmic Rebound theory doesn't work--The more we learn the more stuck we are with that big bang idea. I would just say recheck the data. Check out the Anthropic Principle! Mounting evidence that the universe is highly tuned to support--drum roll-- human life here on earth. Well, I love dinosaurs, I live in an area that is full of bones and tracks--right by my house you can walk to see them. As for your question, I could parrot all the theories to you--but I dunno. I will say--that there are amazing arguments for creationism--I tend to believe them. I am always awed at the wonder of the universe. The idea of the beginning--an end. The Alpha and Omega. Again, the question I ask is not when the universe was created but why? The idea that this all "fell into place" or that there was no intellegent design is just too difficult for me. A universe that exploded into being--life which has not been observed to spontaneously arise. The universe and over 100 life-enabling constants that support our little planet. The complexity of our make-up, Limited range changes. Something arising from nothing. Macro evolution is a hard pill for me to swallow--I vote intellegent design. I am a seeker--I am also a Christian--and as such--I have been convicted of my own sin, let alone worrying about Adams original sin.:) I have a repentent heart. Why do I need one? Where did it come from? I didn't always have it. Why do we have a conscience? What is it that helps us distinguish between good and bad? Where do our laws come from? What ideas? Where did they come from? I have a repentent heart because I have met the intellegent designer. If you stop to contemplate for just a bit the idea of such a designer who is outside His ever expanding -created universe, the idea that I might need to repent of my sins isn't so crazy. What kind of being could create this? Must be pretty amazing. Has to be Holy--it fits--it works--it makes sense that He must be beyond our finite created minds. IF IF IF --He made us--and IF IF IF--HE made the universe--He had to have a plan? He must have an idea of what He wanted to happen? A way to communicate Himself to us. I just love watching Him and the plan unfold. Not the when--but the why are the questions I tend to ask! Hope that helps!---Clear as mud--right?:)

Lindyhopper, You and I have much more in common than you think. I have walked a fine line here--because of the nature of TWI and differing places its effect has caused us to land. I would harm no one struggling to understand. First off--I have been careful not to say this--it may cause some to stumble or question--when they are not ready. I don't believe in an infalliable canon. I never have. Second--I don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Nope--impossible standard. I do believe the probabilities are such that I am without excuse NOT to believe. I am justified in my belief in God. Not by it--by it as well, but we all know what that means. Do you catch what I am telling you? Which is why--my standard for absolute truth is not scripture alone. It is impossible. I never said that. Absolute truth is Jesus Christ, God for most. Because belief in God is paradoxical--meaning you believe and then see--Pascal sprung to mind when I read your post. I really don't see it as a narrow Christian perspective. I REALLY don't. I see it as logical. Bet the odds! The Way set up this impossible standard to believe in God--it was bible worship. Nothing is 100% certain--I could be wrong, BUT again it is paradoxical. Infalliable proof is no excuse for unbelief. Beyond a reasonable doubt is enough evidence to believe. The Christian belief in the Jewish Messiah sent for all mankind--a God who came and dwelt among us--is so logical and believable when you break it down. An objective truth--that is when the bible begins to click and work. Hope this clarifys a bit. My very best to you and your family

yes and no This says it best for me. "Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty? The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to be justified in our belief about that something, and to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer no. 1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements, there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge." I do believe we can know absolute truth in the person of Jesus Christ. We are still without excuse. Inerrancy--yes and no---wrong argument IMHO

To Invisible Dan, Please read through-- Do you think I don't understand how persuasive your argument is, or that it is not a very rational explanation? If you do you are a fool--I get it. I can't talk around this topic, and I told you I would not debate it--so, I am sorry I disappointed you. This talked you right out of God, and it would do no less than cast doubt and confusion in the heart of a new or struggling Christian. It has made apostates out of weak believers. I will not be party to that. I tried to reason around it for you. Do you think I don't know that you think my reasoning is circular in nature about God. Or that I get my ides of gnostics from their persecutors? You said, two political factions---I get it. I know that it seems to you I don't understand, but I do. But, the canon is a real problem for many---- foolishness and nonsense taken on faith in the church fathers, I imagine you felt them unworthy of this faith. Take God out of the equation--You win. Their actions were often less than stellar--I get it. I have read more than Knox. I know that belief in God is paradoxical--it opposes mans wisdom. There is a certain amount you must weigh and then decide to believe. For me this paticular problem, has now been settled. God is firmly rooted in my heart. You seem on a mission to rewrite history. I wish you well, but I had hoped, seeing the result of being in an gnostic belief system, you may have recognized the truth of Paul's(Clement's) warning. Maybe step back just a bit and weigh the evidence you have seen with your own eyes. It really was my hope that it would click. It was my one shot. BUT--I in no way have given up on you. Here is one that will hold me up to ridicule and scorn from many. I am sure as I know my own name--you will one day believe on the name of Jesus. You will bow before Him and be a powerful witness for His Glory. He is more than able. You are marked out for God. When you do, I hope that you remember me. I am the one pleading for your soul, and will continue to do so, as I gather others to do the same. Dan, my prayers are answered with clarity. I am sorry I could not steer you past this argument--I did my level best to bring it around to other things we could discuss about the nature of God, evidence in prophecy--there is some great historic evidence in there, creation, intellegent design, miracles, . . . . But if the gospel of Thomas and Mary---or persecution by the pauline christians-or the invectives of tertullian-or the dating of Luke--or the disagreement on the canonical books---or the need to dispense with the q for a more accepted explanation, are looked at and not weighed against the other evidence avaiable to us--you win. Do you ever consider anymore that you came from a group that worshipped the bible? Your reaction and resultant belief is really very understable. I worship Christ, the living word. Big difference. I don't mind looking weak or foolish to you--I cannot be party to causing any weak in faith to stumble. I always weigh my options. I always put my faith in Him. It took everything in me not to quote Blaise Pascal to Lindyhopper. To not point out the obvious, if you are betting soul you should consider backing another horse. Take Care and I will not stop praying for you. Your heart is too good to waste dwelling in unbelief and too tender not to be drawn to the tender mercy of God.

These women who tell their stories are credible and honest. How can you blame THEM for the future actions of the abuser? VP was a pig--pure and simple-- these women were victims of his twisted mind. If you are a victim yourself---empathy is an appropriate response. VP fondled and grabbed enough women without raping them that many could have confronted him. Why is it you hold the victims of the worse of his abuse accountable. Heck, that man grabbed people he didn't even know well, in a crowded room no less-with a creepy eye patch on. Anyone could have said to him it was wrong---called the authorities and turned him in for harrasment. You are going to have to blame a whole bunch more if it is the fault of the victim. The more comfortable they are --these pigs---the bolder they are. I wish I could stick around and watch this conversation. Something is NOT right here.

Hi Sunesis, I agree with both you and Abby--but it has been good for me to remember this stuff-it has been years for me. Tertullian and the church fathers are where we get most of our info on Marcion. Not much of his survived. The Pauline Christians were a wee bit zealous. Tertullian wrote the most and the short answer is---he didn't like him---at all. He was a very verbose and vocal opponent--a lawyer--He wrote volumes on Marcion In order to predate Marcion to Luke you have to discredit the Church Fathers. I still wonder, after all this--Marcion claimed his canon --the Antithesis was inspired. What do you do with that? What happened to old Count Mutatori(SP)? Luke could have edited his version and Marcion had an early copy. These were all over the place. Not unthinkable at all, but what is--to me--is that Luke would copy the work of a heretic. I am happy with the Q--works for me. I will tell you a great story about Irenaeus though to give you an idea of what these guys were like--when he was 19 his entire church was rounded up and 50 or so were killed--the bishop as well. He had to pull everyone together--unify them. Can you imagine at 19 doing this? The other Bishop was dead--not a job I would want. The odds were not in your favor. Always two sides to every story. I will take the accepted norm and enjoy my God--He is worthy. A Corinthian was a term used to describe a bad dude. --- It was a wild city with every kind of vice of choice available. The term was still used in the 1800's. Gonna be gone for a bit---dealing with my eldest. She is a handful to say the least. Have fun

Pontus was an established Greek City--Tertullian tells us it was a barborus place. Sexual promescuity--odd happenings. It was, I THINK inhabited by Cimmerians(SP). Because it was a Greek City some argue with his evaluation. Now wait a minute, what could have been happening there that would cause Tertullian (A Christian) to so describe Sinope? He tells us of sacrifice, crucifixion, and blasphemy against God. Who else tells us of idol worship and odd happenings in Greek Cities. Paul. So, before we write of his description as biased, we have to look at how Paul saw similar places. Corinth springs to mind. That was a barborous and sexually promiscuous place. Where do we get the use of the descriptive term "a corinthian"? Okay, other than Marcion being born there, why is this so important? Before we seek to discredit Tertullians description and write it off as biased we must consider HIS perspective. And I would also argue it would seem barborous to us today. Either we write Tertullian off as prejudice against Sinope because of Marcion, or we consider, for a moment, the reaction of a Christian. One God, a message of SALVATION. Looking at Sinope--seems a pretty credible way to consider. I am back for a minute--I just have to say this and then I think I will let it stand as is. Another explanation for the synoptic problem is fine. Take it ---run with it--be accountable for it. Just remember this, there are reasons we look at the theology. Luke would have considered Marcion anathema. You don't get that without considering the gospel. You just don't see it without understanding the differences between the two systems of belief. We have Marcions theology--unless you question the source. You also have to discredit too many people. It is so difficult on this premise alone. Get rid of the Q or dismiss its need---explain around it. The whole is still the answer here. It always has been. Pick apart Tertullian--compare and contrast Mark--Luke, and Matthew---you have an explanation---not the truth. It breaks my heart. Do not be robbed by "another" explanation

Hi Bride No not a minister, just a Christian who took the time to seek Him out, after looking closely at why I responded like I did. I stopped caring for awhile. I understand the pain TWI caused, which is why the relativist veiw can seem so comforting. I get it, which is why I am here for a bit. But, my life is encroaching just a bit as is Dan's and others, so I am slow. I have blown discs in my neck which cause my arm and fingers to go numb. I am not very old--but it seems I am starting to crumble a bit:) It is so good to see you here. Cman You challenge my ego---won't work. Do you understand an outline. Written for the cheapseats. Even if I could quote the church fathers verbatim, this topic is ESOTERIC. Which in itself should give one pause. Revisionist history, is rewriting of our accepted and established view of events and persons we have come to by painful and scrutinous examination of the evidence. There are criteria by which we do this. It is not a bad thing at ALL. However, current culture is a must while looking into revisionist historians. I have not even touched that one! This is not a new theory. It was examined in the 1800's and responded to in the early 1900's in a definitive work by Dr. Sanday of Christ Church(I think) Oxford University. A fairly respected place. Although it seems they let anyone in. My brother-in-law got his masters at one of the colleges. Sanday was challenged in the 1940's by John Knox---A professor from Princeton(MAYBE) I can't remember. He was not as dogmatic as you might think. He was also not conclusive. His challenge was to method Sanday used in determining language. Again, I think. I am doing this from memory. He wrote a booklet. It has yet to rock the Christian world. Now, there are others working this material--German mostly, at least at one time, and most of them seem to agree with this idea. How do you win grants-fellowships-and the luxury to sit around and work this stuff--just like this. Provacitive ideas that seek to reshape the greatest story ever told. Cman-to draw a definitive conclusion on a reworking of new evidence is a wonderful thing--taking a look at established history with a differing perspective is so VERY important, as well. BUT, to draw definitive conclusions based on a narrow perspective, without considering all the variables is just plain silly. AND, as a Christian, my view is usually on the outside of academia. BUT, my point is, it is none the less valid when making a determination on heady issues and matters of God. Scholars and historians have yet to kill Him off. The bible is here and its critics always end up eventually in the same place-- Lets look at the bible for a moment. First let me say, I love the skeptic. Thanks goodness for the skeptic, or my life would be pretty boring and I would never truly examine my faith. Having said that, the bible seems to evoke an almost pathelogical response in so many intellectuals. The usual questions come about inerrancy and all the usual suspects--nod their heads prop each other up and agree. Step back and look at the miracle of the book. Not the miracles contained within its gospels, but the miracle of such a book even existing. Again-- Written over 1500 years 40 authors 3 continents Written by shepards and kings and many in between. Different moods and cultures. Written from the depths of sorrow and heights of joy. Written in times of GREAT persecution and times of prosperity. Many stories and ONE SINGLE underlying them. The promised Messiah. That is a small miracle right there. Easily discarded?. . . to get on to disproving Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Because?--why do we even get to the point we seek to do THIS? And there are MANY that do. That pesky book. We have to get rid of the reality of the book then we don't have to deal with the issue of Jesus. Cman do you have any clue as to how many have tried? How many arguments are out there for the bible not being reliable? How long this has been considered. NOTHING NEW!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know what happens to many many honest skeptics who take the time to examine ALL the evidence? You guessed it--they become believers. If we can cast doubt on the authorship of the books contained in the bible--well, then we can discard with having to deal with the question of whom this historical figure is. We might even have to cast some serious shadows on those nasty church fathers. (Tertullian alone gave us some serious food for thought.) All the while giving favored credence to the heretics of the day. After coming out of a life shaping-thought process shaping---anti-establishment embracing--Jesus denying similar belief system, whether 20 years ago or yesterday--those beliefs permeate. I happen to believe that looking at all this is a process which can lead to understanding those beliefs. Which is why theology is important to any discussion. But, I also happen to understand a tiny bit about God. He is worthy of seeking but NOT OVERT. He is hidden from the proud. He is paradoxical to our understanding and self-proclaimed wisdom. A careful examination of where we formed that wisdom is a must. What really is our motivation? What baffles me and what really makes me wonder is why the need to question the Q or Logia or the two source explanation in the first place????You don't like the external evidence???Is it so important when you take the time to look at the evidence on a whole. Meaning that which God has given us.--There are many in this world who have a PAGE of the bible. A PAGE and believe and understand far better than I the reality of God. MAny of these people go to their death for this belief, I kid you not. They suffer. They understand what it is to deny the Lord.What is your motivation? What is it you really seek? An intellectual exercise--you picked a good one. Knowledge for knowledge sake? The ever present wisdom of man. These arguments have been around forever--these questions--the bible still remains. For yourself--you can choose to deny Him, it will never make him less real. You will be dust ---the bible will remain until the Lord returns. And those who except the explanations for "problems" so they can get on with the business of knowing God will always pity you and seek to reason with you. Klinghardt will not save you---Jesus will. He will establish Himself in your heart by the Holy Spirit and He will assure you that HE IS!

Hi Bramble, I am in no way trying to prostleize here. I will say that Jesus and a relationship with him is not secret, it doesn't require too much "special knowledge". It is a choice and you always articulate yours really well. As you call it, another path. I get it. I am not seeking to change your mind. I can even make assumptions about you given your path. I may be wrong, but I would imagine you are inclusive, nonjudgemental, gentle and probably very kind. That I glean from your chosen path. Hi Waysider, THANKS! I was sick a few weeks ago when I started posting and I sat in bed and read the entire thread. It was interesting to look at that again. I guess my point was Christianity is not completely void of scholarly men, and this info has not changed the way we print bibles--is all. It hasn't really rocked the Christian world. I really enjoy your posts. You are one I always make sure to read! Cman, I have NO animosity toward you or anyone here. I like ex-way people. Sorry to have offended you with my ideas. It was not my intention.

Hi Cynic You don't have to go--Really, you don't have to leave--no I INSIST--stay!! :) If I told you I was Orthodox in my theology-conservative in my approach--with strong Calvinist leanings and landed in a Baptist Church, you would probably get right where I am coming from. I am so much a Calvinist that the end of Cman's response to you started making sense!LOL BTW-Thanks Cynic No, I came in off the street and didn't quite realize it was a demilirtarized zone. Some of the questions and comments here really intrigue me. I respect the honesty and intellect of some of these posters. Relativism defies logic in my mind--hence the curiousity. Mosey back--an ex-way trinitarian is almost as rare as an ivory billed woodpecker. :)

Back to gnosticism. If the early Christians had not acted with such vehemance(for some) enthusiasm for others, -The Christian would have lost the heritage we have from Judaism---the gospel(good news) would have been a bickering between a few. It would have disappeared -- another mysery religion. You might be wondering why --- if it is of God then it wouldn't disappear right? Well, it didn't, it is still the largest faith in the world, but this is where we witness the Providence of God. This is how God works, He allows the actions of men like the gnostics(Who have free will) and the fathers to bring about His will. We were very confused about how God often works in TWI. But that is for later. Gnostics as we may realize(Thanks TWI) are very hard to talk to. They have a knowledge given to them by their MOG that is not "Available" to others unless they are part of the group-PFAL. Christians had real difficulty combatting gnostics. They did not like the Jews,(Myth of the 6 million) whose OT God they thought was a cruel tyrant. Many Christians were once Jews. There was no real love lost there. Remember that gnostics always promote another Jesus. And why this is so very important to understand is the road that leads to salvation is narrow. It may not matter to you as an atheist or Pagan or Wiccan. It is very important to the Christian. They were watching people be tricked and decieved by another gospel. A false gospel. They had to find a way to combat this. You may ask, if their gospel was so great why were people fooled? Why were we? They often prey on the new seekers and those who are lured by promises of unique enlightenment. Nothing new-we see it today. People believing a magic formula uttered once of another Jesus, and boom-born again. Not so. You have to hear the truth of Jesus to accept Him and when you do you make Him Lord in your life. Christians were not just disturbed by the spread of gnoticism as a numbers game, Christianity is a message of love. They were fighting for souls as well. Christians had to rise up and clarify their own orthodox doctrines. They had to clean house of the heresies. It is also important to realize what was going on with the church at this time. Christian and gnostic alikes--a fact many gnostics boasted of, were being ruthlessly presecuted. There is that pesky alikening to Christianity that was more than they bartered for I imagine. But, the reality is, like us in TWI--many gnostics really did not understand the difference and considered themselves Christians. If it walks like a duck---we in TWI thought we had the right Jesus--it was everyone else that was wrong. We considered ourselves Christians. We even had persecution. Those darn Christians were after us because we were enlightened. Back to the early church. One gnostic in paticular was very powerful. But, he started out in the church as an influential member of the Christian faith--remember, not of us. Numb fingers--I will get back to him--Marcion. Adding. . . . . I guess I just want to stress again, how offensive another Jesus is to the Christian faith--it is so important to understanding the cannon and is a large part of why we have it. There is something comforting in the knowledge that these fathers took this stand. For 2000 years people have been trying to destroy the loving and simple message of salvation offered so freely. It strikes at the core of our being--it either woos us or offends us, there are those on the fence, but all have a reaction. The name of Jesus causes so many to stumble. It provokes a reaction from many on this thread. Either one of anger or of disbelief and I have even seen condescention. Why? WHY Is the name of Jesus such cause for alarm? Because whether you accept it or not, you all make a choice. To ignore the message, or belittle the message, or raise your intellect above the message. It does not make God any less real, and I think somewhere deep inside us we sense that. Hence the reaction. But another Jesus, or a false gospel can steal--it robs people of eternal salvation. It is an affront to the heritage we have from The JEwish People. It is a counterfeit. If you thought you were buying a diamond ring--and found out too late to return it that it was cubic zirconia and you were stuck with it forever, and someone knew and didn't tell you. . . . . . As Christians we are exhorted to reach in and pull out those in the fire of apostasy. Warned to be careful, lest we get burned by its powerful influence. There is a reason for it. But, back to Marcion --We have talked about him at length but never really discussed what we know of him. There is not alot to know of his history. He was born at Sinope, the son of a bishop. We know the church where he was raised was established by Paul. He was wealthy--a ship owner.. . . . Numb fingers

Hi Sunesis, To those who say they didn't know that Vic swiped from little known scholars I would ask--what was 4 crucified about? Where did we get that or 6 crowings? Ignorance of the law is no guarantee of innocence. We latched on like babies with a bottle, and blew these out of the norm theories to epic beliefs. We knew the word like it has not been known. It is a trait that we learned and a habit that can carry right on over.

MAny Christians try to seperate what Jesus said from who He is--Thomas Jefferson comes to mind. They find the beliefs of historic Christianity uncomfortable. Christian behavior on the other hand is important to them. Early Christians faced the same thing --with those who seperate the supernatural from Jesus. Which leads me to a discussion--long over due--about gnosticism. But, first let me clarify a few terms I have bandied about. Catholic means universal and there are some who may confuse its use with catholicism. Early Christianity was universal in contrast to local and Orthodox as opposed to heretical. This is an important distinction for this discussion, and I want to use these terms clearly. Terms like orthodox, theology, and religion have meaning, but they also carry contemporary baggage. The term theology means God(theos)ology(rational thought). The opposite of bad theology is not --- no theology--it is good theology. Rational thought about God. It doesn't mean religion, which is a belief in God and an attempt to live accordingly. Theology is our attempt to give rational explanation about--you guessed it---our religion. When we have bad theology--an irrational thought process about God, we call it Heresy. It doesn't always mean bad religion, but it can lead to it. Good theology is Orthodox theology. We sometimes have a reaction to this term that is less than favorable, especially in our current culture. Lots of baggage is tacked on to this term. It shouldn't be. It is. I am an orthodox Christian. What is the immediate response? Groan. It is nothing more than good theology.Theology is akin to philosophy, but not exactly the same thing. Heretics in the first century church served a purpose, as we have discussed, they created a situation in which doctrine had to be ironed out. Through rational thought about God. Some might pounce(Here, NAW) and say--why would the revelation of God (Jesus Christ)have to be ironed out? See, Christianity is nothing more than another religion. Wait a minute, the two are not the same. Theology is human understanding of God's truth. Different people think differently, and the early church was, universal. It was not a localized movement. It spread over different cultures, people and faiths. Different reasoning processes. We all know the two main cultures of early Christianity. Jewish, and Gentile--or Greek. Night and day. Jewish people knew God as one, a personal God-Yahweh--to the gentile this concept was at best abstract. The greek had a more precise contemplation of God, they were philisophical. Exacting. They had to believe to accept Christ, but this was their culture and thought process. Most of the early Christians and the apostles were Jewish, and talked of Jesus as the Messiah promised in the OT. He was the passover lamb, Jews understood this. He was also the cornerstone of the Christian church. The apostles didn't hold back on who Jesus is, but they also were clear when it came to those who claimed him to be something else. Christians had to believe that Jesus came in the flesh. Remember the gentiles thought process. Exact. Converts were baptised in Jesus name early on, but eventually in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matthew) Even later (JustinM) In God the father and Lord of the universe, Jesus Christ, crucified under pontius Pilate, and the Holy Spirit who prophets foretold all things about Jesus" Why the change?--corrupted confusion or a reaction to something and an establishing of who Jesus is. These practices were being formulated to resist prevelant error. Worship of Jesus(Did she just say that?) is central to Christianity--then and now. There is an irreconciable distinction that cannot be breached here. I am slowly getting to gnostics. In John, he is having a dual discussion. With those who didn't think Jesus is fully God, and those who don't think He is fully human. Remember, in Christ, the eternal word of God--became incarnate. Also, John 20:31--he was trying to show the deity of Christ. And then to those who thought he was only human---without flesh and blood--there were those who promoted this thought. He explains how Jesus bled real blood when crucified. There was some odd beliefs going around then, and now. Thank-you TWI--a corruption of the simplicity of the promised Messiah. Heresies--the Ebonites--This should sound familar--they taught that Jesus was merely a perfect man--justified by His sinless life. He earned the Messiahship so to speak. Docetism took the opposite view--Jesus was a ghost basically, he looked like a man--but he was really only seemed so. He seemed to suffer, and seemed to die. Since He was a ghost He couldn't die. What is crucial to the gospel and the promised Messiah is that he did suffer and die. We would know better than most that man has a very hard time with the concept of God in the flesh. First Century thinkers were no different. Some tried to change and retell the gospel(good news) in line with their own reasoning process. It was a loose movement which dwelt on the outskirts of Apostolic Christianity in the early Church. Gnosticism. It wasn't centralized. There were differing views on this. This should give some pause here. It wasn't Christianity that was abounding in confusion, but the gnostic movement. The two are often confused. Each group had their own special knowledge and a central figure who would enlighten them. Simialar to a MOG. GNOSIS--knowledge. They had the path or the way of life. Hmmmm sounds so familar. BUT, they were likened to Christianity in their common beliefs. Salvation, a God, angels. Some Christians didn't understand the differences, and gnostics would creep into the churches. They wanted to reform them. They all changed the reality of a God who came in the flesh to save us, to a often weaker demi-God--PERFECT MAN--the stories of the different beliefs are an enlightening and fun read. They vary, but the central theme is a different Jesus than the Jewish Messiah. It was full of different versions, but it was all HERESY. It also appealed to the intellectual. Schools of gnostic thought grew up all over. It was popular in the 19th century as well. Jesus was a great man, but. . . And He did fascinate people like Thomas Jefferson, we have evidence He spent a great deal of time taking down all of Jesus words and deleting any reference to His deity. Ghandi as well. Gnoticism appeals to those who seek to raise Christian faith to an intellectual exercise and higher realm. It appeals to those who love knowledge for knowledges sake. Christianity however, is consistent in its central theme. The Messiah foretold in the OT. There is a reason to the evolving early doctrine. It was to combat this prolific movement. Why don't we have this today? We do, in the form of cults like TWI. But what happens to the enlightenment of the moment--it is discarded for the next great theory. I want to get to Marcion when my fingers are not so numb. There are sound reasons for the cannon, and plausible explanations to the words and reactions of the Church fathers. Also, some very interesting ideas as to the formulations of the cannon as we have it in the protestant world today. I really want to talk about that in relationship to the early church. LATER I will not edit for spelling--sound it out. Geisha

Lindyhopper Just wanted to add that, if taking the work of some little known scholars with an, out of the mainstream theory, and blowing it up to epic purportions ---isn't a TWI trait and mindset than I don't know what is.

Hi Lindyhopper, Sorry, missed your post the first time. It is a shame you misunderstand me. I give Danny way more credit than you think I do. I assume he understands Church history. He has shown me he does. I also assume that he is interested enough to look at all the angles of a subject to glean a better understanding. Am I overreaching here? Guess what? It is possible --- just possible he missed one. Horror of horror, I might have a different perspective to share with him. Now, I might have the Christian perspective. Offensive for some to hear, but I doubt to Dan it would be. I might understand a bit differently why the reaction to Marcion was so volitale. What issues and doctrines were so offensive and why? WHY is important to understanding most anything. You might be able to rattle them off---but I have been in both camps. For the record and so I am clear on this-- TWI was NOT a Christian anything. It denied that Jesus was God. Sound familar-- who else did this? BTW Many of the issues you discuss have been researched and written about and conclusions have been drawn. I am sorry, but there is some great work on the synoptic problem and historically speaking--the 2nd century is not a long time. Do we know anything about the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These were not cavemen. They knew how to read and write. There is internal and external evidence for who wrote the gospels--which is why we call them-Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Do you honestly think that this has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt? Read Sanday. It is where Knox and many others begin. That must mean it is a respected peice of scholarship. I am sorry it is not good enough, but we get those conclusions somewhere. Also for the record--I never said the bible was God Breathed. I said you can know absolute truth in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. It might surprise you to hear my perspective on the providence of God and the written words of men. But, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about me. What is it you think I have to lose? My humanity? What do you know of me? Of course I haven't convinced you of ANYTHING--it has never been my aim. I said I would defend my faith beyond a reasonable doubt. For you to accept that or not is your choice. I have not even said word ONE about Christianity. We are stuck in the same place we got bogged down in while in TWI. I don't know about you, but I took the Advanced Class This is similar in many respects. We still have people promoting the same kinds of out of the mainstream, in the same dogged manner--The mainstream must be suspected. Of course it might be the mainstream for a reason. Oh and the reason I don't make a case is this argument is so esoteric and farfetched to me it holds no real merit. Dan, I assume, knows the opposing historical data, or he couldn't accept his version as true. I was trying to give him another perspective. The why of the reaction to Marcion, but that involves theology. So, I was slowly trying to bring that in as not to cram it down anyones throat. We might have had to mention the God word, and if we can't get past the idea that the bible was written by the authors, well I figured I might have to ease into that. And you wonder why I assume you still look at things through a narrow prism????? I offered to share a different perspective with you. It was my mistake. You may have NEVER heard of Christianity as many practice it--I blame-snake charmers and evangelicals for that. Sorry to have offended with my presence and my naivite. Take Care Geisha

Hi Cman I love this post. It is thoughtful and honest. Can I talk with you a moment? Doctrine doesn't change, but you know what does? Our understanding of and the way we practice our faith. To have a sketchy at best, doctrine drilled into you, and then have someone-let's say, standing over you, holding you accountable for each word, is ridiculous, and abusive. Honestly, that is just insane. God expects us to use our reason and mind as well as our heart of love that He gives us. We are dust made creatures--fallible-foolish, and full of self. We are given to wandering away from good things to seek out lesser things. It is the way we are, but we CAN consider and think. So, your reaction to unchanging doctrine is understandable. I don't think THE WAY had a sound doctrine--a form of something else, but very unsound. Consider, if you want, :) An unchanging love and encouragment found in a doctrine of grace that recognizes we grow and learn and wander. That is what we find in Jesus Christ. As to the doctinal forum. It's a trip!!! Hi Sunesis--:) :) :) :)

Hi Dan I apologize. I told you I have a viseral response. I am sure you have read Dr. Sanday(SP)and his work on Luke, which is what settles this matter for most. That of Luke and his gospel. I too am thankful for the writings we have because it establishes for us after our investigation of internal evidence, the matter for many. Luke is mentioned 4 times in NT, but he is mentioned 2 or 3? times externally Knox came along and questioned Sanday's work on language he used to establish certain things. I don't mean to be vague, but it has been a few years. It might surprise you to hear I didn't react so radically to Knox, he was not conclusive or dogmatic, and his work spurred little real conversation. Until-Greasespot, Kruger(SP) some german scholars, you and others who agree. That means little or nothing to the reality of God. OR the reliability of the bible. It is an intellectual debate--which has gone on for years--critics of the bible--trying to disprove the existence of God or the reliability of Scripture. I don't mind most debates. But, I came out of a destructive gnostic cult. I saw the result of this belief system. For me it must be a discussion of the theology as well as history, does that make sense? It is as valid a consideration as what they said. Why did they say it? For a time, Marcion was pretty big. He was leading a large sect. Even after his death the same group continued and we know the outcome--again. You yourself said there is little left of Marcions writing. We can put together a slight history of his life. I would disagree that gnosticism like Marcions was as powerful a contender into History as you put forth--up to the tenth century. But, I MUST agree that it was a very powerful contender in the 1st and 2nd. Which is why we have to understand WHAT they were contending for as much as THAT they were contending. Hence, my reaction. I know that quote by Justin Martyr--yes Marcion was big. His churches spread like wildfire--for a time. And?. . . . I told you this already. There is evidence he hung around with Paul too. He was a church Bishop---He was once part of the christian church. Which he why he was given the latitude he was in the beginning. To question him was a BIG deal. His father was a Bishop at Sinope where he was raised for goodness sake. I don't dispute this in the LEAST. I am not a catholic, although confirmed at one point. They might still count me in as lapsed, but I believe they screwed up pretty badly as doctrine became corrupted. Yes, information on Cedro is little. And? He was considered a gnostic. Again. . . . .why was he outside the mainstream? What secret knowledge did he have. Well, if Marcion trained under him--we have a good indication. The deathbed thing is a bit iffy IMHO but I threw that in to illustrate a point. There are those that believe he did this. Something made him fall out with his father and get the boot. It could not have been good?? None of this is in dispute. My point to you has been the same as well, the why?? Must be looked at. What causes one to react with such vehemence? Money? Marcion was wealthy--a ship owner. He shored up the church in Rome for awhile--they gave him a refund. Was it the money he pulled away from the church? Or was it something else? Look at the internal evidence. Take Marcions theology and that of the apostles and fathers. Work it with the OT---well not Marcions--he got rid of that. And all things Jewish, or most. According to him--Chreestos--Christos--Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Faced with many problems, he had to come up with a winner of a theology--Because of this. . . Luke would have despised him. Luke was a skeptic. He looked at everything. He was logical. Luke was a bright guy. While we are on the subject here. So are you--a bright guy I mean. Too bright to let this talk you right out of God. The bible has had better critics than you over the years. It is has survived. It continues to teach and transform lives. It is too powerful for you to disprove. But, you can look at Marcion and this history from gnostic shaded glasses and see just what you want. You may take a few with you--to what end? Just make sure you understand all the perspectives. There is one you may have missed. Love is not deaf, dumb or blind Dan, there is a reason for everything. I slam VP on this site as well, with not one ounce of regret or guilt. Why? I am to love the Lord with my whole heart, soul, MIND, and strength. Many Christians forget the mind part IMHO. Part of loving him is recognizing those who try to destroy his people, and speak accordingly. Jesus called Peter Satan. I am not a wishy washy person. I call them like I see them. When it is people like you--who I believe are innocent and honest--I make a logical distinction. Sue me. I have a brain--I try to exercise it on occasion.

Hi, Revictimizing the victims of abuse is itself abusive. It speaks volumes about the one doing it. What they still adhere to shapes their perspective and ability to inflict cruelty on those so horribly hurt. So, it serves a purpose on this website, revealing VPW in all his glory. His legacy. But, how do you provide a safe place for the victims story to be told without restricting these posters access to abusive behavoir? Tough question. Maybe the circle of kind and loving support you all have put around these victims is enough to sheild them? Sounds like it is for some. Maybe others don't tell their stories for fear of ridicule, which is a shame. Banning them seems excessive. The support given might be enough to protect them--the ones revictimizing show their hearts, the ones defending theirs. Who still believes the VP garbage? Who grew up? It is obvious to the most casual lurker!

Again--missing my point. I truly understand why. I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million. I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it. We ALL did.Perhaps we were PROGRAMMED to question the established history for less than NOBLE terms. Possibly, just possibly, I looked at this idea while looking at the evidence presented to me. That may in SOME SMALL way allow me to see things without as much previous predjudice. It is a KIND piece of advice given with guileless motives. Discarded with so much as consideration. That tells me something. Revising history, or believing those that do, and drawing definitive conclusions based on a reworking of the same evidence, is quite a feat. You HAVE to ask yourself what draws you to the ANTI-established ideas. Were we trained to be ANTI-establishment? :) Are you predisposed to easily accept these ideas? It is not a dig or an insult. These are not MAINSTREAM theories. My question of why Polycarp would call him "The first born son of Satan" is VALID. My point that Luke would have DESPISED the doctrine of Marcion and others is VALID. Based on the theology. But, to believe any of your THEORY you have to discard affirmations of the Apostolic Fathers as too bias for real consideration. You have to give nothing written the benefit of the doubt, and draw conclusions. I am saying that not only is the internal evidence questioned, so is the external. To far-fetched when you add in the theology which is VALID. How can this POSSIBLY be offensive or incredible to you for even consideration? UNLESS--you have discarded something so wonderful and so precious on the idea the bible was not written by EXACTLY who it says or teaches us it is. Previously believing at least the idea was possible. That by any stretch of the imagination, gives you a rather LARGE stake in the outcome. I am shocked that the "Mystery Religions" have not entered the discussion. When I said this was reminiscent---I meant it. To consider what I said would have leant you much more credibility in my eyes. What would it have cost you, pride? You are willing to believe revisionist history on slim evidence, but someone who shared a very similar and SHAPING cult experience, because she still believes in God, has questionable motives? I believe in God and it holds me accountable to love you. To care about complete strangers. Our SHARED experience only serves to make that easier. Just a thought. Please remember--there is NO animosity in me toward you--no condescenion. Is it even possible that these are issues that must be CONSIDERED? Being able to discuss them with you may be a clue as to my having asked the same questions of myself. Have you ever really heard the gospel--the one everyone else hears---spoken from a voice of love. It is reasonable ?

There, showered, changed and not rushed. Here is what I am trying to say. Revisionist historians provide a valuable service. I admire anyone who will take on this task, with objectivity. When new evidence comes to light, evaluation is crucial. History is crucial IMHO. Having said that, perspective and agenda HAVE to be looked at. They HAVE to. My perspective is different than yours. We are going to draw different conclusions from the same evidence if we allow our predisposed ideas to enter into the process. Revising history objectivley is almost impossible to do, if you have a BIG dog in the race. So, when I say to you---look at the big picture, including doctrine and evaluate, this is what I am saying. Perhaps they were more than ------like warring political factions. There may be things that don't fit in Marcions theology--with the rest of the bible. These guys used OT. Marcion diminished its importance. yada yada. Perhaps. there is something there you missed. AND, if you came out of a gnostic cult who exerted influence over you in matters of faith. . . . . . . hmmm it REALLY is something to honestly re-think. You were able to discard the entire matter of God on some thin evidence that a heretic was copied by Luke. Fine, but Luke would have reviled him. Because of theology. As far as the epistles go, it is telling to me, that you are not remotely giving the document the benefit of the doubt. Meaning, it says I Paul, and you are saying, in essence, I whoever but Paul. That is why I mentioned the wisecrack about Clement in the cave. You give the document the benefit of the doubt . You don't show your disdain for one side over the other. Not, if you want to be credible. It told me something. Now, couple that with what we were involved in. Step back and look at what we were taught to believe. Add in a healthy dose of psuedo mind control, and consider the task. That is all I am trying to say to you. Read, agree, and enjoy Knox et al---------- But, honestly, given our history, consider why you do. Take Care