Among the many....
Published on April 21, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
Since there's been some talk on JU recently about the integrity of the gospels I thought I'd touch on it lightly here and also since somewhere along the way I promised I would. Of course I can't remember to who but a promise is a promise!!

What are the gospels?

Gospel means "good news." Of course this good news is the record of salvation that has been opened to mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are sort of like biographies as we understand that literary form today. Mostly, they were written that people might know who Jesus was and believe in Him. Of course you have to read them to be convinced of this. Sad to say, many don't take the time but only listen to what others have to say about them.

Why Did the Gospels Need to Be Written?

The rapid spread of Christianity precipitated the need for written accounts of the life of Christ. As major figures to the stories and eyewitnesses began to die, there was an increasing need for written accounts of what they had seen and heard. Each gospel has a distinctive pupose. Each had a different audience to whom it was written for. These writings were carefully copied and sent out to the new churches cropping up all over and were used of early Christian worship.

Why Four Gospels?

Although there were numerous other gospel accounts written, only four were chosen and deemed worthy to be included in the New Testament. The other gospels were written later and are of doubtful reliability. These other gospels while including some information that the original four had they also lend themselves to obviously fanciful and legendary tales. They often tried to bolster heretical viewpoints. The early church distinguished these gospels from the true ones and regarded the apocryphal ones as of much lesser importance. One very important criteria used in the selection process was that the Four Gospels were written by Apostles or by a close associate. Later church councils confirmed what had already been accepted by the early church. They believed only these four were authentic and included them in the canon, or collection of books, recognized as inspired and authoritative.

The Gospels were written to the four general groups of people in the first century. Matthew was written for the Jews; Mark for the Romans; Luke for the other Gentiles; and John for Christians.

What Are the Synoptic Gospels?

The first three, Matthew, Mark & Luke present much similar material about the life of Christ. They have more or less a common view of the events, places, teachings and chronology of events. That's why they are called the Synoptic Gospels (from synopsis, a viewing together). John on the other hand is a bit different. Much of his material is unique in comparison to the other three. His gospel deals more with the deity of Christ where the others on his humanity.

These four gospels with their differences supplement each other without contradiction and the similarities complement each other. The result is a comprehensive fourfold record of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.

A fascinating read all of them. I encourage everyone to read them at least once in their lifetime. Why not start today?



.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 29, 2006
well that's what history records. If you don't like it you can re-write it...heck everyone else is. Go for it. You'll fit right in.


Hello KFC, Not so, history records very little about the historical Jesus. No need to re-write it. The New Testament is not a historical record it is church propoganda.

then you just keep following Buddah. but don't say you were not warned. Paul said this: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables.


Paul was, well, a person who wished to convert. Hardly a reliable source. Buddhist practice skills us in giving up "our own lusts." It is Paul who talks in fables in order to establish his church.


So I guess it depends on who do you wanna believe? First thing I did was investigate Jesus. Is he who he really said He was. Was he God? Was he a nutcase? Was he a liar? That's where I think it all starts. What do you do with Jesus?


I don't want to believe anything, belief is a false God in itself. I did 'investigate' Jesus as you suggest, many years ago, and found him to be wanting in a big way. I believe he was a zealot, a nutcase in a time of great turmoil where everyone and his brother thought they were the Messiah. I for sure do not believe he was God, that would be blasphemy according to the Scripture. I don't think he lied, but I do believe his story was used and abused in order to make a case for the establishment of a new religion. I don't do anything with Jesus nor would I wish to. I believe he was a blemished spiritual leader who had delusions of grandeur.

He didn't ome as any lamb. He needed to be crucified in order to meet the needs of his delusion.

The model of God you put forth is flawed and has served only to frighten young and old alike into some sort of fanciful belief in an infantile formula for salvation. Salvation is not a matter of uttering a few silly words. It is a matter of long hard work, many visits to the desert, many talks with the absolute, much pain and suffering.

But Jesus did. Was he not? That's what we all have to investigate for ourselves. What has Buddah done for you? Did he save you? Did he die for you? Did he wipe away your sins? Does he reserve a place for you in eternity?


As I understand it, Jesus did no such thing. He knew that would be blasphemy. Instead, I think he said something like, "Ye have said it" or other. Buddha has done alot, actually. With a long life and thousands of teachings he taught a method of seeking the truth, practicing good, avoiding evil, and caring deeply for all beings no matter how large or small, regardless of gender or class. The Buddha does not have the power to "save" however each of us to, as the Buddha taught. We are each already saved, KFC, it is the product of delusion to think otherwise. Sins? Goodness. There is no such thing as "original sin" None of us are born in sin. Each of us has the capcity to do harm or do good, the choice is ours. In that choice we bring evil or good into the world, it does not and never has existed separate from our behavior.

As for eternity, I'll have none of it. I am a Bodhisattva, here for eternity, to assist all beings (including you) in coming to complete, unexcelled, realization. It is my sacrifice for you.

Be well.
on Apr 29, 2006
Paul was, well, a person who wished to convert. Hardly a reliable source. Buddhist practice skills us in giving up "our own lusts." It is Paul who talks in fables in order to establish his church.


he was hardly a "willingly" convert. He was murdering the Christians before he was "grabbed" by Christ so to speak. He never pointed to himself ever. It was always Christ he pointed to. He spoke of "Christ's church" not "Paul's church. He speaks of being beaten 5X with 40 lashes, beaten with rods, once he was stoned and left for dead, three times he was involved in a shipwreck even spending some time in the water doing so traveling to tell others about Christ. He was robbed, mocked by his own people and by people he didn't know. He was in danger for most of his ministry imprisioned many times evenutally beheaded by Nero.. No, I don't think this was something you seek out during those times. Who would choose this? No he was chosen by Christ. Look at the differences also in the disciples before and after the resurrection. A story in itself there.

As I understand it, Jesus did no such thing. He knew that would be blasphemy. Instead, I think he said something like, "Ye have said it" or other


No Jesus made it quite clear that he was not only sent by God, he was God. "When you see me you see the Father." "Before Abraham was......I AM."

The writings of the Jews hundreds and thousands of years beforehand were witnesses to this day. For all those prophecies to come true in one man is unbelieveable. There is a division over him now as there was then. You see in scripture many times it says they were divided over him. He proved himself. He said to try and test to see if what he said wasn't true. His works proved him, the scriptures also proved what he said was true. Just the fact we are discussing this now and the impact he's made two thousand years later says alot. Even our calendar is dated by this man. How can we say he was a nutcase or delusional?

As for eternity, I'll have none of it.


Well if you're right, neither one of us has lost a thing. If you're wrong and I'm right about this, then you have lost everything. That's why I say, at least investigate the claims made by this God-man. Not only have I investigated his claims I've had more than one encounter with him. I know he's alive as certainly as I do my family. Just because you have not met him does not mean he does not exist.

on Apr 29, 2006
Picking that which makes your point but leaving anything out that doesn't quite jive with it.

I can see that you are not familiar with the truth here

There is some truth in what you say about picking and choosing, although you are gracious enough to say that it comes from 'ignorance of the truth' rather than any deceitfulness. If I am guilty of anything it is in wanting to see in the example of Jesus a paramount example of enlightened wisdom. As you show, however, my glowing image of a 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' has to face up to the clear examples in your scriptures where this religious leader, as Sodaiho says above, shows himself to be at times deluded and to have acted inappropriately and without genuine wisdom.

In one way this discussion has been useful in showing me that Christianity is actually stranger and odder than I had realised and that my attempts to fit it in with the perennial philosophy (the idea that all religions in their different culturally-defined ways show glimpses of the same truth) relies on an over-simplification. If the end result of this discussion is that I now feel more alienated than ever from your faith, that may not be ideal from your point of view of wishing to 'convert' me, but I am grateful for the intellectual clarity that it has brought me.

If you're wrong and I'm right about this, then you have lost everything.

One tip that may help you debate with us: threats of 'eternal damnation' for failing to see things your way, rather than terrifying us, convince us all the more that we are simply dealing with an immature spirituality in which all the resentments, anger and desire for revenge that dwell in human hearts are 'projected' in to the sky. Your scripture and your faith proclaim a god made in your "own image and likeness". I still believe that beyond all the human fantasies by which our religious imagination has tried to reach for the beyond (YWHW, Krishna, Allah, Maitreya, Zeus, Isis...) there is a Reality that transcends all of our anger, delusion and folly - impossible to 'understand', but which we can 'express' with every act of kindness, wisdom and self-giving that our wounded hearts can manage.
on Apr 30, 2006
There is some truth in what you say about picking and choosing, although you are gracious enough to say that it comes from 'ignorance of the truth' rather than any deceitfulness


Well Chak, only you and God know that now huh? I try to give the benefit of the doubt and it's much more reasonable to me that you are more ignorant of the truth than being outright deceitful. So which is it....hmmmmm?

As you show, however, my glowing image of a 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' has to face up to the clear examples in your scriptures where this religious leader, as Sodaiho says above, shows himself to be at times deluded and to have acted inappropriately and without genuine wisdom.


where would this be?

In one way this discussion has been useful in showing me that Christianity is actually stranger and odder than I had realised


from the secular point of view this is very true. We are to be a peculiar people just as the Jews of the OT were told the same thing. God wanted us to stand out and apart from the rest of the world. In the OT to the Jews he said:

"For you are a holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a peculiar people unto himself above all the nations that are upon the earth. Deut 14:2

Peter also said this to the Christians in 1 Peter 2:9. So Chak, you are so right here. Good insight.

Your scripture and your faith proclaim a god made in your "own image and likeness".


first of all, it's not MY scripture but all GOD"S Word and it's we who are made in HIS image and likeness so you've got this a bit backwards here. Guess who you've been listening to?

If the end result of this discussion is that I now feel more alienated than ever from your faith, that may not be ideal from your point of view of wishing to 'convert' me, but I am grateful for the intellectual clarity that it has brought me.


Please believe me if not anything else I say.....I am not out to convert anyone. That's not my job. Only God can convert not me. It happens by the power of the HS. I am not the HS by any stretch. I don't have this kind of power. I only say what I do to educate and inform those that have no clue what the word of God really says. If you feel further alienated than that's a decision you made. Don't blame me for that. I'm only delivering the message...I didn't make it up. Jesus did say he didn't come to unite but to divide and the division over him has been going on ever since. There is nothing new under the sun (SON). And you're welcome; anything to help.

I'd rather you be alinated like you say you are than to be a lukewarm so called Christian. I feel there's more hope for you than them. A nurse told me once that a totally dead heart is much better to revive than one that has been injured but not dead.

One tip that may help you debate with us: threats of 'eternal damnation' for failing to see things your way, rather than terrifying us, convince us all the more that we are simply dealing with an immature spirituality in which all the resentments, anger and desire for revenge that dwell in human hearts are 'projected' in to the sky.


Do you think that's what I'm doing? I did notice you took what I said out of context here to give this reply. Now this would be a deliberate thing here. I can see that.

KFC

PS. I'm going to send up a prayer for you today. Hope you don't mind!!



on May 01, 2006
Guess who you've been listening to?

I can't guess, you'll have to tell me.
Do you think that's what I'm doing? I did notice you took what I said out of context here to give this reply. Now this would be a deliberate thing here. I can see that.

Absolutely not. Your whole argument rests ultimately on a foundation of believing that those of us who see spiritual matters differently to you are deceived by the 'Prince of Darkness', and maybe even carrying out his work, for which the only possible end point is the eternal lake of fire and brimstone. You're usually very upfront about this - (no one talks about Satan on this site more than you) - why so coy now?

Much as I like discussing these matters with you, there comes a point beyond which we cannot go. You believe what you believe because it is written in your scriptures, which you believe to be the literal and inerrant word of God. It is not something that can therefore be rationally debated, because - already possessing complete and absolute truth as written in your scripture - you have excused yourself from any obligation to provide meaningful proof of any kind, other than, of course, references to those very scriptures - a hopelessly circular argument.

When you talk about experiential reasons for your faith, i.e. what effect it has on the lives of those who share it, you are on much firmer ground, but even this does not constitute the proof that you think it does. Looked at sympathetically I can see that fundamentalist christianity can bring real joy to those who live it, but it also brings a fearful intellectual narrowing and, at times, a surprising hardness of heart. It is no coincidence that many of the harsher extreme right-wing conservatives in your country (and I'm not saying that conservatism itself is bad), share your religious philosophy.

I believe that our human lives are voyages of spiritual discovery, in which doubt has as important a part to play as faith, and in which, the moment we claim absolute certainty, (as all fundamentalists do) we lose our hold on the intellectual curiosity, self-deprecation and joie de vivre that make our lives so potentially rewarding and interesting. The secret that mystics (of all faiths) discover, and fundamentalists miss out on, is that in "not-knowing" our finite minds come closest to comprehending infinite mystery.
on May 01, 2006
With palms together,

Hello Chak and KFC, as well as others who maY be reading through this thread.

I would like to ask a question or two about these books in the New Testament. First, why is the lineage so different in them as regards the geneology of Jesus? Second, what are people to make of Jesus himself? Here is a man who, according to KFC claims to be God coming from a faith that would clearly understand this sort of thing to be completely over the top, a man who gets angry and has temper tantrums, who sets up a disciple to be his betrayer, and yet is revered by so many. I find his words on charity and peace very helpful. I find his words on the value of forgiveness to be encouraging. Yet many churches tend to undermine his words. 'He didn't really mean that we should 'literally' turn the other cheek and get smacked again! ' I'm not so sure.

I have never really gotten straight answers from believers, perhaps they don't have any, perhaps they have not thought the questions through. But as I asked earlier, I think, how is it that Christianity can on the one hand say they believe in the inerrency of the text and on the other hand so freely change it and its meaning? The Sabbath is and always has been Saturday. God changed His mind? He said don't eat pork. God changed His mind? He said that we should not make graven images, yet there are crucifixes and the name of God written out all over the place. Again, I suppose God changed His mind. Perhaps He did. Perhaps not. I for one don't know, but I believe if I mess with one of God's laws I better have a thorough and consistent rationale for it or not believe in the literalness of the whole thing in the first place.

The whole thing is very confusing to me.
on May 01, 2006
Sodaiho

First, why is the lineage so different in them as regards the geneology of Jesus?


If you look at these two accounts, one in Matt and the other in Luke, you'll see one is Mary's line and the other is of Joseph. You can see backing up to King David that one side came from Nathan (Mary), David's son and the other came from Solomon (Joseph) his other son. So Christ got his blood line from Mary (Nathan) and his kingly line from Joseph (Solomon).

Second, what are people to make of Jesus himself?


Jesus is 100% and 100% God. That question is a loaded one. It all comes down to what do we do with Jesus? Is he God or is he not? I believe our eternity lies in how we answer that question. I believe he was God in the flesh who came down to show us the way.

I have never really gotten straight answers from believers


Since when have I not given you a straight answer? I do my best and if I don't know the answer I find it.

how is it that Christianity can on the one hand say they believe in the inerrency of the text and on the other hand so freely change it and its meaning


God is the same, today, yesterday and forever. God does not change. He has a plan from the beginning and it's being played out exactly as planned.

The Sabbath is and always has been Saturday. God changed His mind?


No, the Sabbath is and will always be Saturday. People loosly call Sunday "their Sabbath" but you're right the Sabbath is only on saturday. But the Christians started worshipping on Sunday because that was the day that they celebrated the New Covenant, the resurection of Christ. The Old Covenant celebrated the Sabbath and was a celebration of Creation. The New Covenant brought the resurrection and Christ was our rest. There were many covenants in scripture and each one added to the prior one and was a better and better covenant.

He said don't eat pork. God changed His mind?


The OT did have strict dietary laws. Peter was told in the NT that all things now were acceptable to eat. It's kinda long to go into here but not only do I think that God knew that certain foods were harmful if not cooked properly so he had a prohibition of safety regarding such foods but I also think it's all tied in with the Gentile-Jewish thing as well. Just as it was ok to eat "gentile" food after the resurection, it was ok for these gentiles to come into the faith as well. They would be joint heirs in the kingdom. That was very tough to swallow for the Jews and Peter had to deal with this.

He said that we should not make graven images, yet there are crucifixes


Remember back then there were many deities worshipped via golden calf like images. God said to the Jews..."Don't be like them, be separate and holy." These images pointed away from Christ. I would not put a crucifix in the same category. It's not the substance but the spirit that matters. God isn't concerned with the externals but the internal. To a Christian, the cross is a reminder of the price paid for our sin and the abundant love that was poured out for us there. It points to God.

The whole thing is very confusing to me.


I can see that. But when you start looking closer and putting it all together like a puzzle you get a whole different perspective than the one you've had. I don't think you have your pieces out of the box yet and they are just a jumbled mess. That's what I like to do, help people put the pieces together.

Be really well





on May 01, 2006
Your whole argument rests ultimately on a foundation of believing that those of us who see spiritual matters differently to you are deceived by the 'Prince of Darkness',


I actually agree with this statement and I believe you are very familiar with it as well. So this should be no surprise to you. I believe there is two spirits fighting for our souls. Spiritual warfare is very real and for those that don't believe in Satan (and I know that's a belief out there) Satan is very happy about that. He does his best work undercover. There are parts of the world that you can actually feel the evil in the air. I've heard many first hand accounts in Somolia and Brazil expecially. I believe that we see evil everyday all around us and I believe it's coming from spiritual sources.

You're usually very upfront about this - (no one talks about Satan on this site more than you)


well maybe that's because I think it's good to shed sunlight on evil. Usually when you do, those working underccover flee. Sort of like lifting a big rock and seeing all the bugs and rodents run for cover. Sunlight serves as a disenfectant. It's a good thing.

You can actually see this in the physical as well. I heard a story the other day about drug dealers working a park so bad that no one would dare visit this park with their children. It got really bad until someone put up speakers and started piping in Christian and classical music. They disappeared. it does work.

You believe what you believe because it is written in your scriptures, which you believe to be the literal and inerrant word of God


Yes, and I know you don't. But I'm only responding and discussing these things because you wish to and I as well enjoy a good debate. Just say it Chak....we're having lots of fun now aren't we?

you have excused yourself from any obligation to provide meaningful proof of any kind, other than, of course, references to those very scriptures - a hopelessly circular argument


I have? Well what do you want? I think we have enough proof out there outside of scripture. You can check Science, Archeology
History, first century writings of those who tried to disprove this man of God and while doing so actually helped bolster the faith. Many believe that DNA was the final nail in the coffin for the theory of evolution. It all points to a designer.

we lose our hold on the intellectual curiosity, self-deprecation and joie de vivre that make our lives so potentially rewarding and interesting


I've been there Chak and I'm telling you the joy of knowing Christ personally brings more joy and peace than anything else could ever come close to. Jesus said "I came to give life and give it more abundantly." It's so true. I wish I could prove it but I can't prove that because it's internal, but I do believe if you look closely at lives affected by this man you will get the proof you need. There is something they have that the rest of the world doesn't have. Find those that are the closest to Jesus and you will see him yourself in them. It's more than just following a man or a belief. He's actually dwelling in us.

I could write books on what God has done in my life and the experiences I've had along the way. I gave you one already on another blogsite. Now multiply that by hundreds of times that Christ has made himself known to me, my family and those close to me who also call themselves Christians. We all have stories to tell similar to Paul and others of the Book on how Christ reached down and grabbed us while we were dead to sin. He breathed life into us and we were revived. Being "born again" is an apt description.

I believe that our human lives are voyages of spiritual discovery,


where and what do you base your opinions and thoughts like this on? If not the word of God as I do then what? What is your foundation?

on May 01, 2006
where and what do you base your opinions and thoughts like this on? If not the word of God as I do then what? What is your foundation?


With palms together,
Forgive my buttinsky here,Chak,

This is a foundational question upon which everything revolves, KFC. It is my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of millions of other seekers throughout millenia, that the only foundation possible is touching the Infinite itself. This is why all seekers leave home, figuratively or literally, in order to touch the Infinite, we must get out of our clothes, our comfort zone, so to speak. We go up a mountain, out into a desert, or retreat into a cave. There, alone, we meet ourselves and the Infinate face to face. In my opinion, arrarently the opinion of the major figures in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the New Testament, in the opinion of the Buddha and his myriad followers down to myself, it is not only essential, but necessary to do this in order to be authentic. Merely casting eyes on a text, understanding a text, devouring a text, embracing a text, believing in the text and all that the text points to is nothing if it does not include an experience of awakening, as well.

And in such experience is the authority. Once there, all other things are merely fingers pointing to the moon and are better left behind.

Be well.
on May 01, 2006
If you look at these two accounts, one in Matt and the other in Luke, you'll see one is Mary's line and the other is of Joseph. You can see backing up to King David that one side came from Nathan (Mary), David's son and the other came from Solomon (Joseph) his other son. So Christ got his blood line from Mary (Nathan) and his kingly line from Joseph (Solomon).


But I was under the impression that Jesus was immaculately conceived, therefor not in the lineage of either. Besides, Hebrew lineage derives through the mother and the mother only.

Since when have I not given you a straight answer? I do my best and if I don't know the answer I find it.


True enough. I was referring to the mass of folks I have asked these questions of. Vague answers at best.

No, the Sabbath is and will always be Saturday. People loosly call Sunday "their Sabbath" but you're right the Sabbath is only on saturday. But the Christians started worshipping on Sunday because that was the day that they celebrated the New Covenant, the resurection of Christ. The Old Covenant celebrated the Sabbath and was a celebration of Creation. The New Covenant brought the resurrection and Christ was our rest. There were many covenants in scripture and each one added to the prior one and was a better and better covenant.


So, people decided to disregard God's law? Shabbot is far more than a celebration of creation, is is a mark of the partnership between God and man. The Sabbath should be central to a believer's life. Every conenant God made with man was built one upon another. The Noahic code was not superceded, but added to, for example. Jesus followed the rules, was kosher, and I am sure would not suggest his followers abandon God in such a way.

You say Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, I say we all are 100% man and 100% God. We are all sons of God in a manner of speaking. I believe in an imminant God, not a transcendent one. My evidence is my experience.

The OT did have strict dietary laws. Peter was told in the NT that all things now were acceptable to eat. It's kinda long to go into here but not only do I think that God knew that certain foods were harmful if not cooked properly so he had a prohibition of safety regarding such foods but I also think it's all tied in with the Gentile-Jewish thing as well. Just as it was ok to eat "gentile" food after the resurection, it was ok for these gentiles to come into the faith as well. They would be joint heirs in the kingdom. That was very tough to swallow for the Jews and Peter had to deal with this.



Kashrut was never about cleanliness in the biological sense, it was about being clean before God, that is acceptable to God. When God commands something, He in effect is making that thing holy or sacred. It is your obligation, if you are a literalist, to follow all 613 commandments of God. So, you think God changed His mind after He had a kid?
Possible, I suppose, but unlikely, in my opinion. Gentiles, or "ger" were always part of Israel. Not tough to swallow at all. In fact there is some good evidence I understand that Egyptians left with the Hebrews during the Exodus. We are commanded not to treat a righteous stranger in any but a welcoming way. While Jews rarely attempt to seek out converts and make it tough on those wishing to convert, we do not think it tough to swallow at all.

Remember back then there were many deities worshipped via golden calf like images. God said to the Jews..."Don't be like them, be separate and holy." These images pointed away from Christ. I would not put a crucifix in the same category. It's not the substance but the spirit that matters. God isn't concerned with the externals but the internal. To a Christian, the cross is a reminder of the price paid for our sin and the abundant love that was poured out for us there. It points to God


You are doing a bit of revisionism here, I'm afraid. The Hebrews were and remain supremely monotheistic and their God has always been an invisable God. The commandent about having no other gods before God and not creating graven images was a a good thousand years before Jesus was born and had nothing to do with him. Remember God as portrayed in scripture is a very jealous God. I see this as a reflection either of His insecurity or the insecurity of those creating this infant monotheism.


God is the same, today, yesterday and forever. God does not change. He has a plan from the beginning and it's being played out exactly as planned.


Good point. I agree with the first part, God does not change. However, our understanding does as we grow as a species, deepen and learn from our experiences both with each other and with Him. I am not so sure at all about the latter. I don't see God, personally, as a creator God. I think creation comes and goes and comes again like a vast breath, perhaps of God's, I don't know. I think we and He are intimately connected, made of the very same stuff, dso to speak. We human beings love to think there are reasons, i.e. plans, for everything, but I am not so sure, at least not in the way we typically think of a plan.

Of all of Aristotle's four ways of understanding causation, I am most fond of final cause, that is teleological cause. This cause suggests we are here for the sake of something. All behavior is purposeful and future driven. We act for the sake of something most of the time, rather than because of something. When we look at it this way, the Infinite prhaps had only sentience and discovery in mind, who knows? Animal life became His way of experiencing and discovering Himself.

But you see, this is mere speculation. Zen Buddhists try to avoid such activities as essentially hindrances to the task at hand which is precisely that, to experience exactly and fully this that is here right now.

I can see that. But when you start looking closer and putting it all together like a puzzle you get a whole different perspective than the one you've had. I don't think you have your pieces out of the box yet and they are just a jumbled mess. That's what I like to do, help people put the pieces together.


Nice thought. You are somewhat on the mark. But then for me eternity is my box. The only problem with your picture here is that it presupposes a finished picture. And contrary to that impossibly crazy piece of jibberish, Revelations, there are no end times, only the rising and falling away of conditions.

Be well.
on May 01, 2006
But I was under the impression that Jesus was immaculately conceived


He was immacultately conceived meaning that Joseph was not his blood father. That's it. Mary had lineage and it came from David. Joseph had lineage and it came from David as well. But they came from two different brothers. Jesus heritage and rightful place on the throne has never been disputed. God took care of it on both counts. He got his blood right from Mary and his Kingly line from Joseph. I think that in itself is pretty amazing.

So, people decided to disregard God's law?


Not quite.... there was much debate about this in the NT. You'd have to read the NT to get the whole pic here (Acts 15 is a good place to start) especially Galatians. The "Judiazers" were trying to keep the laws of the OT and grace as well. The NT speaks of us being under Grace not under the law anymore. The law and all of the OT pointed to Christ. Christ is in every book of the OT. The OT is revealed in the NT and the NT is conceled in the OT. It's pretty cool when you start digging and find this stuff. What the law could not do for us, Christ did. He fulfilled the law. The law could not save us only show us how far we were from God. That was the whole purpose of the law....it was our schoolmaster.

God, I say we all are 100% man and 100% God.


have to be blunt here again....this comes from the pit of hell. Same as what Satan said to Eve in the garden.



on May 01, 2006
You are doing a bit of revisionism here, I'm afraid. The Hebrews were and remain supremely monotheistic and their God has always been an invisable God.


While I agree here for the most part(but I'm not even close to being a revisionist) are you not familiar with Aaron and the golden calf story? But what I was referring to really were the other people groups and their worship of other gods, not the Jews. God gave that commandment knowing tho that they would go after the other gods which they did do from time to time. We see that very clearly in the OT scriptures. The prophets all warned them about this. It was called spiritual adultery. Read the book of Hosea sometime, a minor Jewish OT prophet or Judges and you'll see this come up. That's what his whole book was about. Time and time again God warned them and loved them and would take them back when they came crying back to him. He was always faithful to them even when they were not.

It's the same with us today. Time and time again we go after our idols, which could be in the form of a job, a sport, other people, drugs, alcohol, tv, computer....you name it. An idol is anything that takes us away from the real God. I find myself time and time again, going back to HIM and he again is always faithful. His arms are always there to take me back again. That's the God I know and love. If we don't feel HIM with us, it's not because HE moved but We moved away from Him.

Be really Well Sodaiho

2 Pages1 2