brideofjc

who they are( are blind lost people chasing their tail like a

crazy chained up dog in the backyard of thier mind,hoping

that their followers will do the same.

what a freaking mess!!!!

OKC, that's almost poetic! You use some great words there.

Ok, I'll throw my 2 cents in.

First, I don't believe we will know. The Antichrist/Beast is not revealed until the "restrainer" (Holy Spirit/Church) is taken out of the way. Then, man's fallen nature can go unchecked. There will be nothing to restrain it left.

Believers are told to watch for Christ's imminent return. We are not told to look for the Beast, monitor politics, or the world situation, or look for signs. Signs are for those alive during the Beast's reign.

We are specifically told in Revelation that the Beast comes from the "abyss." The angel unlocks the abyss, the Beast is let out, he is named. His name is Abbadon (Hebrew) and Appollyon (Greek). Thus, I do not believe he will be human.

I believe he is the same being who was worshipped before the flood, when the fallen angels, or "gods," were worshipped by mankind. They were bound in chains so they could never damage the human line again, and it is they whom Christ went and preached to after his crucifiction.

Why do I think it will be this god, or fallen angel?

First, because there is only one other time in the Bible where Satan incarnated in a human. It was so awful for that human, he killed himself. That was Judas. I do not believe a human could withstand having a spiritual being such as Satan living in their flesh. It would kill them in short order.

Second, because no matter how amazing a human may be, I don't think one could get the whole world worshipping him - someone would be bitching about him somewhere.

Third, if one were a "god," a fallen angel, a being who looks human (as do all appearances of angels in the Bible who appear to humans), but is supranatural - it can truly do "wonders." Things no human could do. It will be Apollo returned - the one who was, who now is not, but then will be.

I believe a fallen angel would have no problem allowing Satan to incarnate in him as he sits on the throne in the rebuilt temple, showing that he is God.

Note, at the end, he is thrown into the lake of fire alive. This tells me, he has a body different than peoples' bodies.

His buddy, the false prophet is also from the abyss, as is his entourage.

He is the destroyer, to humans he will be spectacular.

But this "person" is going to have to be or appear human. If signs, miracles and wonders that are false will be done by this person, then indeed, if they are wounded mortally in the head, what is to stop stn from "raising" up this "dead" human and making him alive again? Absolutely nothing.

Thanks a lot Kit!

Got some good notes out of it!

Kimberly,

That's very sad to me. On different levels. The babies being raised by grandparents. The mothers whose lives could have been college and sororities instead of midnight feedings and dirty diapers. And Dear Margo (Ann landers' daughter) thinks this is fine. I'm glad to see I'm not the only dinosaur around here.

And if these girls were rich like Britanny Spears younger sister, People magazine would be fawning over them, in line to get the first baby pics and NOT A WORD of any kind of disapproval.

sudo

Margo is Ann Lander's daughter? Well that explains everything! After going deeper with the Lord Jesus Christ, I stopped reading Ann and Abbie as well.

I found I was already in the company of the perfect advisor.

Thanks for the reply. I wonder what Adam & Eve thought they were naming their son, breath of God or Empty of God?

I can see the "El" at blue letter bible, but only in Hebrew letters, which I can read if I squint really hard :ph34r:

You'll see those Hebrew letters a lot better if you look in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

But don't forget if you have access to a hard copy of the book to start at the end and turn your pages to the right. You will be reading the end of the book before the beginning!

This will cause a huge brain strain at the first and you will leave with a headache. Oh and don't forget, you will be reading from the right of the page to the left, too.

I think the oddest thing that stuck out for me in Margo's column was this:

DEAR WEN: Not only does your mother have a heart the size of a navy bean, she is certainly behind the times. Federal statistics show that 45 percent of all pregnancies are among women who are not married. You read that right: 45 percent. Without meaning this as an endorsement,

Yeah Wendy, don't want to endorse this type of lifestyle, BUT......Your Mom is really behind the times!

I think she did just endorse it!

But then she topped herself off with even more pee poor advice:

In other words, the stigma is gone. You mention having had problems with your parents your whole life. This is just another one. The very idea of offering condolences in this situation is appalling. They don't sound supportive or loving, so ignore the noise. And maybe ignore them.

--- MARGO, DISREGARDINGLY

Oh yeah, Wendy, dump your support system. Not sure if Wendy just wants to whine because Mom doesn't back up her poor choice or this entire article is fabricated so that Margo can foist her views on the unsuspecting public. I mean if you look at the letter, Wendy states that she doesn't have time to "I don't have the energy to look for a house, go to work and plan a wedding." Hmmm...didn't she say she was getting married in the summer anyway. And who necessarily needs a house just because you're pregnant. The baby will not take up that much more space, at least not for a while. And if she is a dentist, I doubt she is living in a hole in the corner apartment. Then she has to go to work. No big deal, who doesn't? But then look at her supposed last comment....she doesn't have time to plan for a wedding???? Wait a minute...wasn't the wedding in the summer anyway? What gives?

I think perhaps readers should DISREGARD MARGO.

I've read many excellent books on Revelation. It was written after the persecutions of Nero. I believe it is written to the Jewish assemblies living under the Beast. The church is gone, man's day is over, God now deals with Israel and the gentiles. I recommend Bullinger's Book, Commentary on Revelation. He shows, how what is written to each assembly is right there in the OT, its application for them then, and their reward if they overcome.

Christ has already overcome for us, and in Rev., the epistles to the assemblies, they must overcome. I also know many apply it to the Christian church. There's too much OT, Jewish imagery for it to be to the Christian assemblies.

If you read the epistles to the assemblies in Rev., with no commentary, as written to those living under the rule of the Beast, its chilling. Too much in there has not happened. But, this book will continue to be debated, there are many differing views on it.

Yes, you're right on one thing, the book of Revelation will remain hotly debated depending on which church you attend. I see that there is a debate amongst theologians on the dating as well; from Nero's time to Domitian's reign in 95. As far as too much OT Jewish imagery, you have to remember whether it was written in the 60's or the 90's, a vast proportion of the church was Jewish so it would fit right in, besides they were very familiar with apocalyptic literature. Whereas, we have not been raised with such literary genres, except perhaps the light treatment one may find in the fairy tales. So your point on that issue does not follow, because the church was Jewish Christian. I have flirted with a lot of different views, not content to just (as of yet) nail one down, but rather finding contentment in being a Pan-Millennialist.

I just looked up "Abel" on Blue Letter Bible and it gave the definitions of the name Abel as "breath" or "vapor" based on Strong's. What source gives it as "empty"?

My Hebrew lexicon

and yes, it also shows breath or vapor as well...which is empty, nothingness...which is why the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY likens our lives to it as well.

What you do not see in the English bible is the hyphenated word attached as a prefix to Abel...his real name is "El-Abel" or God Empty and since English

puts its adjectives before the noun....Empty of God.

Bride, again, gotta agree there. Or, Melchisedec was a "type" of the Christ to come.

I believe, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time, the priests of the Synagogue, knew the Messiah would usher in a new priesthood - the priesthood of Melchisedec.

The Aaronic/Levitical priesthood would be replaced by the new priesthood of Melchisedec.

This is why, when Caiaphas was the high priest for that month, he was the one who delivered Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, to Pilate to have killed.

Thus, the high priest Caiaphas truly did put to death the lamb, fulfiling the OT prophecy.

But, note what Caiphas did. As Jesus was in front of Pilate, Caiaphas "rent" his priestly robes.

Under the OT law, this was prohibited - a priest could not rend his robe.

Well, technically, he would not have been in THE PRIESTLY GARMENTS that he would wear when he went into the holy of holies to offer the blood of the lamb every year. They were to be put on when he was already in there and taken off before he left that area to go back out into the holy place. But it is a neat concept that you noticed that and it could very well stand for the death of the priesthood. Rending your clothes was a way to publicly show that you were grieving or something vexed you. This is why the Lord Jesus said that our heart are to be rended before God and not just the outward tearing of the cloth.

If you read about Caiphas previously, he knew there was a new priest of the order of Melchisedec coming.

As he watched Christ standing there, meek like the lamb for the slaughter - he knew.

I believe he truly knew.

He was looking at the lamb, the soon to be new Royal Priest of the new line of the order of Melchisedec.

Thus, he rent his robes, signifying the end of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

As if to confirm this, at Christ's death on the cross, the veil in the Holy of Holies in the temple is rent in half. That fabric was almost 1/2 foot thick.

The veil (symbolizing Christ's flesh which was rent and pierced) was rent.

Yes, and the veil was torn from the top to the bottom clearly indicating that it was God who had just torn it in half, thus opening the way into the new covenant.

Through the new King/High Priest Christ, after the order of Melchisedec, all who desire can now come to God.

I've been on the wrong end of a SHOTGUN!

You can bet it surely scared the debuhl right out of me.

(and darn near more than that. )

And, if I recall correctly, I did let out a very loud "JEEZUS!" as well.

WS....you're too much!

man! I heard that! ...all kinds of things used to come be cast out of folks when they did the cleanse...

Yeah, but this was years out of twi already before THE LORD did the cleansing. LOL!

Not too radical Bride! That's awesome re: the flesh and blood. Lots of things to think about. Thank you.

I have also thought, the whole Garden of Eden was a type, a shadow on earth, of the true heaven's temple which we can't see.

I've thought that Eden is set up, was a pattern of the heavenly Temple. We see the temple motif all over the bible.

I've often thought the tree of life was the innermost "holy of holies" of the Temple. When they were thrown out, they were thrown out into the outer courtyard, never allowed to enter the Holy place again until God had the Jewish people make the temple.

I have often thought the Tree of Life represented Christ, whom we are to "take, eat" of now. The tree had medicinal purposes. It would have kept them alive forever as they ate of it.

Then, Christ comes, and now tells them to take, eat, of him. He is Emmanuel - God with us, He is God tabernacled in the flesh dwelling among men.

He now offers at the last supper, the tree - Himself, take, eat.

I believe Holy Communion, if properly taught today, is also medicinal. We are partaking in life.

Communion is medicinal and that is why Paul said in Corinthians that "many are weak and sick among you and many sleep because they had not properly discerned the body of the Lord." Are we literally to consume the flesh and blood of Christ? Obviously not, for I do not believe in transubstantiation. But yet the images are there, I think, for us to learn from. It's also possible that the Eden in the green was a temporary set up to see which tree of life that they would choose and that had they chosen Christ in that moment of decision, the heavenly Eden would have descended or just appeared and then they would have been eternal. But praise the Lord Jesus that HE was willing to die for us and to shed his blood so that we may now have eternal life. Even if we never really know exactly what happened, I can see another image of God tabernacling with HIS people; and as Abel was really named: "empty of God" then because of Christ being in us and HE being Emmanuel, "God with us" it is in direct opposition to Abel.

Another thing that I have pondered on is this: Is Revelation really for the future or is it right now? It was written to the then church and apparently they understood the imagery without a hitch. Because if the Christ is the true tree of life and the river of life is flowing out, which would be linked to the Holy Spirit, then we have received all these things through the cross of Christ and Pentecost. Anyway, just more thoughts.

Bride, I too have thought the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was Christ, or a type of Christ. There was a choice to be made. Interestingly, that tree is never mentioned again.

I looked it up. In Rev. there is the Tree of Life, and the Living Waters - I knew there were two. Living Waters for all to drink of.

I find it interesting that it was the woman who first ate of the tree in the Garden.

Now, in Revelation, it is the woman, the Bride, who invites all to freely come, eat.

Pretty neat.

Here's another aspect that I have thought of too, and that is the promise of a Savior comes to the couple by God when the "blame" is rolling down hill in Gen 3, and God

states that it will be the "seed of the woman", which of course, it's the male that bears the actual physical seed. Since Adam was the first, we can safely conclude that God

had informed Adam that this seed was not to be wasted, etc. If he did partake as even some ancient Jewish theologians were surmising the different possibilties of what happened on that fateful day. Since Adam "knew", the transgression was on him, but only "sin" was on Eve, probably since Adam failed to "talk with his wife". Clearly, that sin still exists today, Gentleman!

You say Sunesis: Bride, I too have thought the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was Christ, or a type of Christ. Are you really meaning to say, that Christ was a type of the Tree of Life? Because that's what I was saying and I think since the Bible contains a whole lot of double prophecies etc., it is highly likely that Christ was the TRUE TREE OF LIFE, while the man's member was an earthly tree of life, since it is obviously the organ whereby seed is emitted and children come forth.

Also, as I said before in a previous post, Cain was the first to commit physical murder, i.e. abel (here is a neat-o-rific thingy) Abel in Hebrew is really: "El-Hebel" which means empty, void, nothingness. What did his parents just lose? They lost God! And so they named their son, "Empty of God." Is that wild, or what? Plus, the real first murder came with Adam and Eve, when the dvl tempted them and said that they "would be like gods", what does a god decide? What does God have as HIS perogative? Life and Death is at HIS disposal? So when they partook of the seed (human beings in seed form)(if they did) they became like gods having that choice. So, I guess, if they did, and the text doesn't really say, we are speculating, cannibalism was really the first sin, or murder, at least in the physical. While in the spiritual, it was rebellion against God and trying to sit in HIS Throne.

As far as revelation....yes....eating from the TRUE TREE OF LIFE, the LORD JESUS CHRIST. I just thought of this.....if they did eat the flesh of their children in seed form....what did the Lord Jesus Christ command them in the Gospel? You must eat MY flesh and drink MY blood. Then the original sin is reversed out, by eating from the TRUE TREE OF LIFE.

I hope this is not too radical at 5:30 a.m. :blink:

Again, I would never teach this as doctrine in a church, there'd be too many heart attacks and epileptic seizures happening all at once.

Well, there goes someone's whole hypothesis then, huh?

Boy, am I upset. NOT!!

But please do note that hypothesis starts with HYP(e)!

plus please do note that hypo is: hypo- under or below something, low hypothermia

Proably lies with Rosie and Donna. LOL!

Is it just a coincidence or what?

Rosie and Donna?

Ros e O'Donn ll?

Is it the name?

In Genesis 14, the Hebrew word that is used is really a compound word....melchi=King and zedek=be in the right, be right, have a just case. Therefore, v 18 could be translated as such:

And the king of righteousness and peace brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.

It is interesting that this king brought forth BREAD AND WINE, a foreshadowing of the elements of communion that the Lord Jesus served at the last supper. What is going on in this passage is this king and Abraham are partaking of a covenant together and sealed with bread and wine, and this king blesses Abram, possessor of heaven and earth.

The writer of Hebrews clearly connotes that Christ is the one referred to in Psalms 110, Hebrews 5 and 7. So who is he? I think it was the pre-incarnate Christ in physical form.

I take it then that you desire to become an author someday? Very well written imo

Does he know Jesus as his Lord and Savior?

If he does, you can tell him that he doesn't need

to worry about dying. He can live a long and prosperous life

getting to know his Savior better each day.

QUOTE

Possession happens in the spirit of man, while oppression happens in the soul of man

bride, where are you getting this idea from?

Pretty much from those that function as deliverance ministers. I follow a tripartite tradition regarding mankind. Here this is really tricky; pretty much I would categorically state that the soul of mankind can most definitely be oppressed. Maybe we should clarify some terminology here, Jeno, 'cause I wonder if we are not operating with different meanings. When I say oppressed, this can include "habitation" by demonic entities but they reside in the soul of mankind and not in the spirit. I believe that the demonic entity does (I hate to use this word) "control" the person, only so because of the very strong mental hold that the entity has on the person and not because they are possessed. The Charismatic end of the church has been very nebulous on the definition of possession Why? Maybe because they do not want to set something in stone, so to speak. Here is what I believe that possession entails: the demonic entity can and does control the body or the host and also controls the mind of the host AT WILL and whenever he/she wants to control the host. The demonic entity many not manifest at all times and may not even be there 100% of the time. I believe that a lot of them do, they are just not manifesting at the moment or may not need to manifest unless a very strong Christian personality comes into the life of the host and begins to give the person the Lord Jesus. Definite guarantee to get the entity to manifest into the physical realm.

QUOTE

And yes, you can have the HS "in rez" and be oppressed by demonic entities.

i never said that you couldn't... if you read what i wrote, i said that christians could be "oppressed" but not "possessed"...

I hope they truly cannot be possessed in the way that I just mentioned above. But I lean more towards oppression with a Christian than I do with possession. I realize we have the HS and the Jews before Jesus did not. However, they were covenant people and they were covered with the blood that was available for them at that moment. So sometimes I wonder about it, because Jesus had to deliver the man in the caves and the little boy who was being thrown into the fire and water. Questions that I still have on that subject and may never be satisfactorily answered until the Lord Jesus comes back.

in fact, i'm not sure you read what i wrote at all...

Yes, I did read what you wrote.

you write:

QUOTE

The HS doesn't have to dwell with any demonic forces, because even if a person was "possessed" (which would be in man's spirit), if the person were witnessed to, to the end that they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, when the HS came to dwell, I can guarantee that the demonic forces would be more than happy to move

and how exactly does this disagree with what i said... which is, that a christian cannot be "possessed"... you yourself admit that the demon would move once a person becomes a christian...

so are you saying a christian CAN be possessed or CAN'T be possessed??

I technically hold to the idea that they cannot absolutely be possessed, but only oppressed. However, I have my moments when I question myself, see further above. If asked publicly, I will hold to that they cannot, but this doesn't negate my private questions.

QUOTE

As I remember (correct me if I'm wrong, its been 25 years or better, if anyone still has the syllabus), in "DWTA" class, the exact opposite would be true, Jeno. vp very much relegated "possession" basically to unbelievers

well... i can't correct you, i don't remember the specifics of this class, and i don't have the syllabus... all i know is that all the wafers that i was around used the term "possessed" for both believers and non-believers... so whatever vpw's thinking was, in practice, the term "possessed" was applied to BOTH christians and non-christians indiscriminately... and i was led to believe while IN twi that christians could become "possessed"...

In my area, I guess I had it better. There were some that spoke of demons manifesting etc, but if they did believe these things, (maybe they thought we were babies and couldn't handle the intel.,) they rarely discussed them openly.

QUOTE

That's because you still retain twi terminology to some extent.

this is quite an assumption, bride... because i don't agree with you, you want to label my thinking as way-like... you don't know me very well!... and i don't think that is a very honest way to have a discussion by labeling the other person's thoughts as ingrained with "twi terminology" (especially when i've told you otherwise)... if you want to disagree, then disagree on the merits of what i say and NOT by trying to discredit me with a presumptuous label...

My apologies if you do not....but that's what it sounded like quite frankly. But it is difficult to tell where a person is at spiritually, so to speak, or how much training they had in twi or outside of twi or even what they are currently doing. So sometimes when words come out of peoples fingers, sometimes it sounds too wayish and you have to wonder if you're talking to an innie or an outie. Sometimes, it is difficult to keep up with everyone's spiritual journeys since leaving twi.

Sunesis, I think Revelation only mentions the tree of life which many theologians believe is Christ himself.

The sexualizing of the original sin, as I said in an earlier post, is not new at all, it was already being pondered upon whenever they were writing the Mishnah tractates and the Talmudic literature. Because apparently, the Jewish rabbi's concluded the same as a lot of folks have concluded that there wasn't much around to sin with, so a sin involving sex seems to be the obvious choice in the matter.

I do not think that people are "projecting" their fantasies onto the text, what would be the point? Especially, if you've ever considered any scholastic efforts. But as I also mentioned, another thought that I had pondered on, was just exactly that, that the "eating" was really the digestion of the Word and both trees, namely, one was Christ, probably in his pre-incarnate body and the other was the dvl. They merely chose the wrong words to digest and assimilate into their minds. It's nice to hear that other theologians also think that the tree of life is Christ as well.

QUOTE

a.Yes, and the Bible itself bears itself out with its own historicity and authenticity, at least IMO.

b.What do you mean by "bears itself out"?

Archaeologists keep "finding" things that in the past were under fire by those who wish to shoot the biblical scriptures down. I said this before: Scoffers said that Israel had fabricated the life of king David and there probably wasn't any real historical figure who ever did such things. Archaeologists unearthed a stele of the same time frame that clearly listed Israel as the winner of a particular war and the leader was none other than king David. Or charges that the messianic prophecies were also fabricated post Christian era and this is the reason, so the scoffers say, that the "prophecies" are just so darn accurate. Poof! God has a little sheperd boy cast a stone into a cave and he hears jars of clay breaking and an entire extant mss of Isaiah clearly placed there pre-Christian era. They had to retract their statements.

QUOTE

a.Plus, I would just like to add, does anyone question the authenticity or the historicity of secular books, like they do to the Scriptures? Not unless "experts" in that particular field can categorically disprove the author's statements.

a.Sure, when it's obvious that an author has an agenda or an obvious non-neutral point of view. For example, one of the Dariuses inscribed his geneology on the side of a mountain in what is now Iran. Modern historians believe that he "padded his resume" and that his list of ancestors in not genuine.

Okay, I'll take your word on that one. But what book, EVER, has been continually under perpetual fire to disprove it, other than the Christian bible?

QUOTE

a. As far as the Bible is concerned, people throughout the centuries have been trying to debunk the Scriptures and they have yet to do it, at least in my humble opinion.

b. When one assumes an inerrant bible, and any contradictions are only "apparent contradictions", any debunking will of course have a facile explanation. Don't know if this is what you do...

What I do? You mean do I assume an inerrant bible? No. I give that credit of inerrancy to the Author. And before you say it, let me say it....I do believe HE has kept HIS WORD inerrant and perhaps (I say perhaps) the parts that have been found to have "apparent contradictions" are the parts that the LORD let the human writer add?

QUOTE

a. Chronicles and Kings are thought of as historical books because they are detailing the lives of important people that God wanted to highlight. Deuteronomy also falls into this category.

b. Of course there are historical events detailed in these books. Probably on par with the records of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita.

I'll have to take your word for it since I am unfamiliar with that particular document.

QUOTE

a. I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

b. You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it:

QUOTE

a. Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."

b. First of all, if I want to isolate a quote, that's what I'll do. The question that I had about that part of the quote was separate from what I didn't understand about the earlier part of the quote.

You're using me as proof that I question the spirituality or truth of a Christian's experiences? I don't question your experiences, their spirituality or truth. What I question is whether your experiences, spirituality or truth (as well as your scriptures) can be used as a standard of truth for everyone else. I believe that there is room for a multitude of experiences, spiritualities and truths...you apparently don't.

But when you only take part of the quote it is difficult to get the full flavor. I had to go back up to the original post to get it so that I could read it in order to be able to understand your answer. That's why I suggested to not isolate or take only a part of the quote, it tends to be confusing. In response to your new response: I lean towards Christianity, I don't think I've kept anyone in the dark over that and so hence, yes, do I think it should be a standard of truth for everyone else? Wouldn't that be great! Do I believe that there are other "spiritual" experiences? yes. Can some of them be outside of the church and truly be from the True God? It's possible only in that God isn't limited in being able to reach a lost soul. Do I believe that he routinely does this? I don't believe so because he knows how to cause a lost soul to become so dissastisfied with the "spiritual" experiences that they are seeking (and I believe they are really seeking HIM, oft times they just don't know it, even if maybe they don't word it that way, etc.), that eventually He'll lead them to where they can FIND HIM. IMHO, there really is only one way to the Holy Father, the Creator, and that is through the Lord Jesus the Christ.

Now if the Dee Jays are ready.....

Where were we?

So much going on... so much to reply to... I'll try to keep it simple.

Bride-

You asked about the "other Acts." Here are some brief summaries of some of them. Some are more fanciful than others, but as the link explains "acts" was a genre of writing of the time. Some are considered to be more history than others but as I said, history, fiction, and religious writings seem to overlap quite a bit, especially in theocratic societies.

Which brings us to our history. You brought up Washington and his cherry tree. As Oak pointed out, a great example. He didn't chop it down. More explicitly though, this was not just a story illustrating his honesty, but just one of many stories in the deification of Washinton. This started during his life time and continued in varied degrees in communities and circles throughout our young country. This is a very interesting topic to me and there is plenty to read on it, but one important note. We were and are a democratic society, not theocratic, yet within our first presidents lifetime folklore began to circulate about him and it only continued after his death.

A quick example: ever seen this painting, "The Apotheosis of Washinton"? It is on the dome of the rotunda of our capital building. While it is allegorical it is not completely divorced from a very real mythology in our country's history. This was only roughly 60 some years after Washington's last term in office and his death a couple of years later. 60(ish) years.

Now imagine a great person, a king, a charismatic and/or revolutionary religious person in a theocratic society, in a time and area of the world drenched in this sort of idolization. The "Acts" I linked are an example of this. Stories of kings and queens around the ancient world are examples of this. How long after Jesus' death were the gospels written? How about the different "acts"? How about the different kings of the OT?

I had a great history professor who once equated history with a court case. A historian gathers evidence to support their case and they go at it. If there is enough evidence you may get two diametrically opposed positions. If the Kings and rulers stamped out most or all of any evidence contrary to their favored opinion then you get one view. One skewed view. The reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between the king's/ ruler's view and the other squelched guy's view, but we never get a good idea of that in those situations. You only get the one viewpoint.

The "Acts" that you linked to are within the Apocryphal writings. As you stated, "Some are more fanciful than others, but as the link explains "acts" was a genre of writing of the time." At least two that I perused were dated from the fourth century, which obviously also places them in the pseudepigraphal works. As I said in another post, the pseudepigraphal works were written by other than the listed name, sometimes after the death of the purported writer. This was not an uncommon practice, especially when they knew "leaders" were looking for apostolic authority to be attached to the document before its inclusion into the canon. Regarding the OT, the prophetic books obviously wouldn't have been written in one setting, but rather all of the writings of a particular prophet would have been gathered, sorted by date, using the various kings as their time lines and finally re-writen in one long scroll and thus preserved. In fact, the historical books as well, come to think of it often covered hundreds of years and so the various individual writings would have been kept most likely in the Temple with the scribes.

It makes for good tourism to the rotunda, don't you think? LOL While it may be true that the winning kings eradicated all traces of the battles that they lost while winning the war, this didn't occur every time. I forget which pagan king that David fought and he won. However, archaeologists found a stele from the pagan nation in question and there was king David's name. This certifiably established that there really was a king David, which archaeologists for years had purported that Israel had manufactured a glorious king David for their own glorification. So sometimes the losing kings did record the truth of the situation. Ancient spin?

Personally, I also don't believe that this was done in the compilation of the old or new testament Scriptures either. There's just too much frankness written down about the faults of the leaders. So the obvious goal is not the glorification of the individuals involved, but a simple statement of the historical events.

from your posts, that doesn't seem to be a belief, but a theory

since you think another god could be worshiped

then another god exists in your thinking

Oh, sure Cman, even the Bible states that the pagan nations surrounding Israel were worshipping gods.

I just don't believe that they are True. One could worship their car and "lovingly shine" it every Sunday

and wipe the dust off after every drive. One could also worship their job, bank account etc etc.

For me, there is only ONE GOD. Comprendre ?

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but "Kings" isn't an historical book and it does not pretend to be. I think the only thing that we can "safely conclude" is that the writer was a Yahweh fan!

Chronicles and Kings are thought of as historical books because they are detailing the lives of important people that God wanted to highlight. Deuteronomy also falls into this category.

Good example. No one seriously believes that George Washington cut down a cherry tree. It's a story to illustrate his honesty.

No, but old Georgy was into graffitti! Carved his initials into a natural monument.

It's circular reasoning when they do it too.

Matthew and John, if they were the ones who wrote the gospels attributed to them, personally interacted with Jesus. Mark & Luke, if they are the Mark & Luke of Acxts, apparently did not.

No, Luke was an historian compiling other people's memories. Mark is apparently a convert that the Apostle Peter had made and had schooled him in the Scriptures.

What exactly do you mean by "questions the authenticity"? I assume it means that if I experience communication with the Hindu goddess Kali, or the Celtic god Lugh I may be really experiencing something, but it's a devil spirit or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's just exactly as I stated it, the Holy Bible would question the authenticity of the "content" of the experience, not that you had an "experience." I experience things all the time in my daily life, and since I am Christian, it is my job to line it up with the Scriptures to see if it bears out the authenticity of the event. And yes, sometimes the experience may have come from a demonic entity, and that would have to be determined by the Holy Spirit.

I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it:

Believing one's Scriptures are true doesn't necessarily invalidate anyone else's experiences, they very well may have experienced them....it only questions the authenticity, especially if they claim it to be "spiritual". Which is what non-Christians do to Christians all the time. I am using you as my proof. LOL.

That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."

I guess I'm just saying forums doesn't seem like a place to evangelize. Did I quote Romans 10:9-10? Your "is it coming too close to home" comment is a personal probe into penworks life ... Crikey! I get a lot of personal probes then I guess into my personal life too. I take them with a grain of salt, and I answer some and other I ignore, it just depends. ...trying to be a sign post ... Perhaps penworks didn't mind at all ... I don't know what she considers herself ... But it isn't just the one comment ... you do a lot of "preaching" which is off topic. And no, I wouldn't want someone in this topic trying to convince me their Hindu experience proved their Hindu book was truth.

God doesn't need to tell me to point people in HIS direction, I do it out of sheer joy.

But it is off topic floods the topic with you trying to point people in your god's direction.

And if someone comes back after their twi experiences....all the better. It's just the twi experience that queered it.

Comes back where? Again ... your opinion, and more "witnessing". This was in response to "you", Rhino, not the topic at hand.[color=#000000]You state "the household" does exist ... your personal opinion and nothing to do with the topic. and on and on [/color]...This was in response to "you", Rhino, not the topic at hand. I didn't make these "comments" when I was discussing the "topic" but when I was answering "you."

I think we are talking of other historical views ... not a rehashing of Bible views that you believe because of your personal experience. We were questioning the basis of the bible based on other historical knowledge. You say ... "oh but the bible is true, because of my experience with HS ... and I out of sheer joy am here to bring you back to the household.

Yes, and the Bible itself bears itself out with its own historicity and authenticity, at least IMO. And I do believe I was speaking about textual criticism as well, did you miss that particular post perhaps? Plus, I would just like to add, does anyone question the authenticity or the historicity of secular books, like they do to the Scriptures? Not unless "experts" in that particular field can categorically disprove the author's statements. As far as the Bible is concerned, people throughout the centuries have been trying to debunk the Scriptures and they have yet to do it, at least in my humble opinion.

Let me see if I understand you correctly....I'm not allowed to posit my "opinions" or "beliefs" on a particular subject, namely the Scriptures, because it might be viewed as "preaching", while other posters can posit their "opinions" or "beliefs" because they "couch" them in secular terminology? And use phrases such as: "Other people say...." when most likely it is really their own personal view, but perhaps they are hesitant to put it into writing because someone might accuse them of being preachy? It's rather like the person who speaks with a counselor and says, "I have this friend who needs some advice...." Everyone knows they really are asking for themselves.

No, you didn't use the word "heretic".

[/color]

Ahh, but you see, at least I hope you do, that this them makes your post off-topic as well? But since the topic is about "Scriptures" it should be self evident that one will advance their Scriptures and it's veracity. If it includes "pointing" to "Scriptures" that the other poster has admitted a common bond to, sure, I'll admit it, I wish everyone who ever experienced the queering that twi doctrine did to those Scriptures and to those who innocently believed them and were trying to live them out, would either "come back" if they have left, or be strengthened if they are still hanging in there. If taking a stand upon the veracity of the Holy Bible, which I believe are the only Scriptures is being "preachy", well so be it. If there are any Muslims et al, then are they not free as well to propound what "Scriptures" are?

huh? wtf is that saying?

You could worship a god and believe that there is only one god.

I could also worship a different god and believe that there is only one god.