These questions are addressed specifically in the book The Jesus Dynasty.  I bought it on a whim @ Barnes & Noble.  Very worthwhile reading, if you're interested in the historical reality underpinning Christianity.

It is about you pushing and you stand convicted by your own words in #12.  Even AFTER I asked politely that you not turn this into another RCC push you still do. 

I know exactly what Paul was saying to Timothy but the question is do you? I refrained because I didn't want to really get into this Catholicism vs scripture yet again.    You really don't understand what Paul was saying although you think you do because you're so blinded by the authority of the RCC.  They've told you they are the ultimate authority and you believe them to be true.  So because I love you and do want you to come to the understanding of the truth.....let's look a bit closer at the verse you keep bringing up shall we? 

Here's your 1 Timothy 3:15:

I am writing these things to you hoping to come to you before long but in case I am delayed I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 

What you continually get hung up on is the word "church" and you think it means RCC.  It doesn't. You don't really read it carefully.  Expositing scripture means to draw out carefully what is written

notice the church belongs to God (household of God).  In NO sense is it a human institution.  It is God's church, his family.  Paul's metaphor here is NOT that of a denomination but of a family.  Believers (all walks of life) are members of God's household and we are to conduct ourselves accordingly. 

Paul further is defining this group of believers as "the church of the living God."  I don't think we disagree that God purchased the church with his own blood.  Our disagreement has to do with the definition of church.  "The living God" has a rich OT heritage which I won't get into here. 

Now when he talks about "pillar and support" he was taking from the imagery of these terms from their surroundings.  This church where Timothy was Pastor was located in Ephesus.  They understood what he was saying.  The temple of the goddess Diana was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and was located in this city.  One of its features was its pillars.  This temple had 127 pillars, every one of them the gift of a king.  Each pillar was a tribute to the king who donated it. 

The "support" refers to the foundation on which a structure rests.  So in Paul's metaphor the church is the foundation and pillar that holds up the truth.  As the foundation and pillars of the Temple of Diana were a testimony to the error of pagan false relgion so the church is to be a testimony to God's truth.  That's our mission and its reason for existing. 

Now let's look at another passage that I'm hoping (not holding my breath) will make you see what I'm saying a bit clearer.  Paul wrote another letter to these Ephesians explaining the definition of the church......so let's take a peek.  2:19-22

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints, and the household of God.  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.  In whom all the building fitly framed together grows to a holy temple in the Lord.  In whome you also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

See, it has nothing to do with building or denomination.  Remember when Jesus said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up?"  The Pharisees thought (as does the RCC) that he was talking about the literal physical Temple and so they made a big deal about this statement when Christ was actually talking about his body. They used that statement against him for treason.  In the same way we, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit are the Temple of God. 

It has nothing to do with a building or a denomination.  Can't you see this Lula? 

I am very interested and have read tons about historical Christianity over the years.  But remember you have detractors as well as supporters as in anything.  It's good to read both sides but there comes a time when you have to weigh the evidence and for me the evidence is staggering on the side of biblical accuracy exactly as written. 

I live within two miles of a Barnes and Noble and while I probably wouldn't purchase the book due to my suspicion of it undermining scripture, and I don't want to monatarily support that, but I will read it there.  Maybe I'll take a notebook for notes

Have you ever heard of a very famous distinguished Professor and archeologist named  William Albright?  He was considered by many to be the foremost biblical archeologist in the word. I think he died in the 1970's.  His work has forced many critics to completely reassess their conclusions regarding the history of Israel.  He said:

"All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are prearchaeological and are, therefore, since they were build "in der Luft" (in the air), quite antiquated today."

Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White said:

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.....any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.  Roman historians have long taken it for granted." 

There was another archeologist who set about to trace Paul's steps in the book of Acts purely from a historical POV.  He was not a believer and saw that Luke was pretty detailed about places and points of interest so he set about to do some research.  After spending many many years in this endeavor only studying this book of Acts he was absolutely blown away.  He became a believer as a result.  I'm thinking his name was Ramsey. 

I think you'll be surprised.  Far from 'undermining' them, the scriptures are the primary sources for the historical evidence developed in the book - while there is a lot of theological cloaking and embellishment by the authors of the Gospels, much factual history is there to be teased out.  The book could not possibly be considered 'anti-Christian' if you ask me.

ok. 

What do you mean by this?  Theological cloaking?  I've never heard of that term before.   Of course you must realize the scriptures written by these authors claim that the words they penned are inspired by the Holy Spirit (God). 

The book does a good job of explaining this, but it's nothing sinister - simply a matter of sorting historical fact from theological interpretation.

Quite so.

Yes, I agree 100%...whenever I refer to "the Church", I never mean that it's a a building or a denomination.

The Catholic Chruch is not a building or a denomonation...it is the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Church is the mystical Body of Christ and St.Paul is the one who taught that...interesting that you are discussing St. Paul with Daiwa....when St.Paul on the road to Damascus was knocked off his horse and he heard Christ ask,  "why do you persecute Me?"  St.Paul wasn't physically persecuting Christ, but was persecuting Christ's Church, the very same Church built upon St.Peter St. Matt. 16: 13-20.

I love you too....and will be away for the long weekend but will carefully read your comments about 1Timothy and get back to you with my thoughts.

 but you do Lula.  You just don't realize it.  In the same breath you said this:

translated: Paul was talking about the RCC in your eyes.  Because for it to be the mystical body of Christ it would include Christians OUTSIDE the realm of the RCC.  The RCC is a denomination.  It is.  It's an exlusive club you have to join to be accepted as a true believer since only the RCC has the truth. 

ok, have a good trip. 

christians get 2 long weekends in a row?   now that's somethin i can believe in.

Daiwa,

I did look into the book you recommended and I disagree with you on the sinister part.  I do think it's just another book in a long line over the centuries to try and discredit the scriptures as written. 

I looked directly at one of his links here:

http://jesusdynasty.com/

and I was greatly disturbed at what I read.  Two Messiahs?  Even John denied that he was a Messiah.  Christ said of John even tho he was the greatest born among women even those of us who come into the kingdom will be greater than he.  Does that sound like John was a Messiah?

There is so many differences in role between John and Jesus I don't know where to begin.  John was a witness not a Messiah.  John put himself in a subordinate role and lifted high Jesus.  Jesus was "full of grace and truth."  John was not given this description.  John was not God in the Flesh.  Jesus was and claimed to be.  John did not.  John wasn't the one for whom the scriptures spoke of.  He wasn't  resurrected.  John baptized and made ready for the Messiah.  He was greatly used of God (similar to Moses) but not God nor any Messiah.   Jesus did not baptize but was baptized of John.  The title Christ is another word for Messiah.  John's name bears no such meaning. 

The two did not know each other ahead of time either which Tabor seems to indicate. 

The Jews were NOT expecting two Messiahs.  Going all the way back to the writing of Moses they expected one Messiah who would save and free them from oppression.  The whole OT spoke of the one who was coming.  Not the two who were coming. 

Jesus NEVER preached aderence to the Jewish law.  He was all about Grace, not the law.  He was accused of breaking the Sabbath more than once.  He healed on the Sabbath and was almost taken just for that.   John wrote that Moses brought the law but Jesus brought grace and truth.

There is so much I could say about how this book is very anti-biblical but it would take pages.  So I'll leave you with a link I found that did the job nicely.  It comes from Christianity Today and they did a nice review of this book and brought up an interesting comparison to Marcion of years ago. 

There's really nothing new under ths sun (son).   

Here's the link.  It's only 4 pages.  It would be worth your reading especially since you read the book in full.  They call it "How to Explain Away the New Testament."  I concur. 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-32.0.html

Can't help you if you're not even willing to read the book.  I can only tell you that you have nothing to fear from it.  It will only enrich your understanding of the origins of Christianity.

I don't fear it.  It's just that I've read this sort of thing tons over the years.  Different angles but essentially the same.  They can't accept the scriptures so they have to come up with another theory.  The historical part  of this book I'm sure will be ok but it's clear to see that he's all about disproving many biblical truths that have been held for centuries. 

Many red flags were waving broadly when I went to his own site. 

I was hoping to go to Barnes and Noble today but we had a washout this morning so I'll go another day...so don't worry I'll still peruse the book by sitting down in a nice comfy chair but I'm not about to purchase this. 

I've been asked to read many books like this over the years.  Basically they're all the same.  After all you've seen one you've seen them all.   REcently the big popular book around here is "The Shack."   Somebody asked me to read it after they got a bad feeling about it.  I didn't want to but since she purchased it and asked so nicely I did even though I'm not a fiction reader anymore.   I found it to be just  another book that discredits scripture in a fictional sort of way.   But yet, it's a best seller and people are eating it up. 

Did you take a minute to read the review from a Christian perspective?  Do you know what "spiritual" background Tabor is coming from?  I haven't checked into that yet. 

Having read the book, I respectfully disagree.  That's not it at all - the author didn't 'have' to do anything.  He chose to pursue evidence of the factual, flesh and blood Jesus and of the historical context in which he lived and died.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Your call, but assuming you've 'seen it before' is a tad presumptuous.  I'd accept that assessment after you'd read something, but not before.

"Conviction was not enough. Someone had to be deluded. So what assured that
that someone was someone *else*?"
   --The Thousandfold Thought

Therein lies the problem with accepting anything on authority based solely on conviction. My conviction tells me that global warming MUST be real, but without some definitive evidence both as to its cause as well as its slow-down/reversibility I can't advocate penalizing people for the sake of the environment.

The problem with religious conviction - and again liberalism/conservatism are included - is that it demands, at some point, that we accept a source that has no veracity beyond the fact that we believe in it.

The counter, of course, is what if a person can validate sex with children, slavery, etc through reason and logic? As Plato noted, sophistry can lead to any form of truth so long as it can be argued.

Is there a solution between denying conviction and leaning too much on rational arguments? Is society allowed to create laws for the common good without definitive empirical evidence of harm based on a well reasoned argument? Do we let the majority decide every question of justice? Or do we submit to an oligarchy on occasion because, as Madison pointed out, democracy must at times protect the minority from the majority will.

I would say that there are no easy answers, and that makes me appreciate the foundation stone of what the Founding Fathers did even more admirable.

Look at us Daiwa.  I'm defending the bible (God's word) and you're defending this guy who wrote a book that runs contrary to scripture.  Do you know what the exact middle of the bible is?  Exact?  Ps 118:8.  Check it out. 

it's not that I haven't read any of it.  I told you I went to his site and I read excerpts of this book and the excerpts are so off the historical evidence that I've already researched thru the years that it runs contrary to what the writers in the 1st century wrote that it doesn't take Einstein to see which way this fellow is taking his evidence.  I also told you as soon as I can I'll spend some time in the book and get back to you. (Painted the front door today so not a good day. )

I always say that it's only when you know the truth can you spot the lie when it comes up.  The problem is we have to be very familiar with the truth because if not, we will be easy prey for the deceiver. 

There's no "new" information out there that hasn't already been regurgitated somewhere along the way already.  Over and over again.  It's just a new generation of souls to take that makes the difference.

We are in a spiritual war.  It's a war for the souls of men.  God used his 40 men over a period of about 1500 years to put forth these scriptures that are bound together in one bible.  Satan is still writing his books year after year after year for a fresh crop of new souls.