Woman can't teach in the congregation
- Thread starter Affltr
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
there are many Acadimics that support the idea. the DSS scrolls are mostly Hebrew and Aramaic (very little Greek, and their own theology writing was always in Hebrew.
this is from the writings of Epiphanius around 350 concerning the ebionites.
"They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They
call it, “According to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet"
this is from the writings of Epiphanius around 350 concerning the ebionites.
"They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They
call it, “According to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet"
7
="Seedz, post: 3647412, member: 259815"
the gospels are not known for their intricate detail but Greek was the language in use during the time they were written...like English is today. perhaps it is not such a stretch to think they could speak Greek? it seems Jesus may actually have been quoting from the Greek translation of the OT rather than the original. this is what I found looking online cause this is not something I have previously studied. it seems to me there would have had to have been a common language to speak to people with? and not a dialect from a small region within Israel..
have a look at this site for more on education and literacy for the disciples. it does offer some insight
calling the gospels a literary work might be an exaggeration...however, the Bible states that the Holy Spirit influenced those who wrote it and the Holy Spirit would also have enabled the disciples...understand that Christians believe that there is a supernatural side to the Bible...this is core belief...so you will not prob find a thesis on proving the veracity of authors and may instead side with the skeptics...but...faith is from God and so you see, people can go in circles over this without convincing anyone
Not to mention that all we truly have are copies, not a single original document. All of which are from the mid second century and later.
from WIKI:
A biblical manuscript is any handwritten copy of a portion of the text of the Bible. The word Bible comes from the Greek biblia (books); manuscript comes from Latin manu (hand) and scriptum (written). Biblical manuscripts vary in size from tiny scrolls containing individual verses of the Jewish scriptures (see Tefillin) to huge polyglot codices (multi-lingual books) containing both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the New Testament, as well as extracanonical works.
has alot of info on it click
Ironically, the messiah that the Jews expect is nothing like Jesus. Isaiah 53, psalm 22, etc. never once mention the Christ, or messiah. We have ascribed those passages to fit "the messiah", in reality the actual context is far away from what we modern Christians believe them to be. It is quite laughable, I once saw a video of a dude walking around in Jerusalem, reading this passage to the Jewish people passing by in the streets, trying to see if they would realize that the Prophecy was hinting at Jesus. Poor guy, he meant well, but his ignorance is too much.
I already said what the Jews wanted in a Messiah but there are actually numerous OT passages that reference Jesus
I will just write a little about Isaiah 53 though...you can always goolgle OT prophecies about Christ
if you are familiar with Isaiah 53, read it now if you are not or maybe read it again for good measure, then you know it does not describe an all conquering 'messiah' who was going to kick out the Romans. the first verse, actually asks 'who has believed our report?' seems God knows about all the doubt and the Holy Spirit moved Isaiah to write that as well as the rest
'he was pierced for our transgressions,', v5, foretells of the spear put through Jesus
'
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.', v6, foretells of Jesus dying for our sins
if you know the gospels and your read all of Isaiah 53, you will see it actually does describe Jesus
what I referenced here is barely touching on it. I think you may be a bit jaded when you say this does not describe Jesus
the gospels are not known for their intricate detail but Greek was the language in use during the time they were written...like English is today. perhaps it is not such a stretch to think they could speak Greek? it seems Jesus may actually have been quoting from the Greek translation of the OT rather than the original. this is what I found looking online cause this is not something I have previously studied. it seems to me there would have had to have been a common language to speak to people with? and not a dialect from a small region within Israel..
have a look at this site for more on education and literacy for the disciples. it does offer some insight
calling the gospels a literary work might be an exaggeration...however, the Bible states that the Holy Spirit influenced those who wrote it and the Holy Spirit would also have enabled the disciples...understand that Christians believe that there is a supernatural side to the Bible...this is core belief...so you will not prob find a thesis on proving the veracity of authors and may instead side with the skeptics...but...faith is from God and so you see, people can go in circles over this without convincing anyone
Not to mention that all we truly have are copies, not a single original document. All of which are from the mid second century and later.
from WIKI:
A biblical manuscript is any handwritten copy of a portion of the text of the Bible. The word Bible comes from the Greek biblia (books); manuscript comes from Latin manu (hand) and scriptum (written). Biblical manuscripts vary in size from tiny scrolls containing individual verses of the Jewish scriptures (see Tefillin) to huge polyglot codices (multi-lingual books) containing both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the New Testament, as well as extracanonical works.
has alot of info on it click
Ironically, the messiah that the Jews expect is nothing like Jesus. Isaiah 53, psalm 22, etc. never once mention the Christ, or messiah. We have ascribed those passages to fit "the messiah", in reality the actual context is far away from what we modern Christians believe them to be. It is quite laughable, I once saw a video of a dude walking around in Jerusalem, reading this passage to the Jewish people passing by in the streets, trying to see if they would realize that the Prophecy was hinting at Jesus. Poor guy, he meant well, but his ignorance is too much.
I already said what the Jews wanted in a Messiah but there are actually numerous OT passages that reference Jesus
I will just write a little about Isaiah 53 though...you can always goolgle OT prophecies about Christ
if you are familiar with Isaiah 53, read it now if you are not or maybe read it again for good measure, then you know it does not describe an all conquering 'messiah' who was going to kick out the Romans. the first verse, actually asks 'who has believed our report?' seems God knows about all the doubt and the Holy Spirit moved Isaiah to write that as well as the rest
'he was pierced for our transgressions,', v5, foretells of the spear put through Jesus
'
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.', v6, foretells of Jesus dying for our sins
if you know the gospels and your read all of Isaiah 53, you will see it actually does describe Jesus
what I referenced here is barely touching on it. I think you may be a bit jaded when you say this does not describe Jesus
S
Greek and Latin were the languages of Rome at the time (1st century CE). Historically (according to the new testament), Jesus came from Bethlehem, or so we are led to believe. The odd thing is that there are only 2 gospels that tell us of the miraculous birth; Matthew and Luke. Each account of the birth is a different tale (Matt. 1:18-2:23 and Luke 1:4-2:40). You might have heard of Jesus being referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth". Many people don't bat an eye at this, but those that have studied the topic in detail know that prophecy mentioned Bethlehem as the place of birth for the "Savior" or so Christians have interpreted it. So why is Jesus "of Nazareth"?
Well, because that is something that everyone Knew, Jesus was from the District of Galilee, from the town of Nazareth.
Historically, Galileans did NOT speak Greek nor Latin. They spoke Aramaic or maybe Hebrew. Not only are the accounts of how Jesus came from Bethlehem different, but the way Jesus made it back to Galilee also vary. Matthew's account says he was born in a house in Bethlehem and then they (Baby Jesus and parents) must flee and go to Egypt since they got word that Herod is killing all male infants, then they almost go back to Galilee but Joseph learns that Herod's son is in charge after Herod dies, and divert to Galilee and end up setting up shop in Nazareth where Jesus grew up. In Luke, Joseph and Mary are in Nazareth, which at the time was under Roman rule. After Mary receives revelation of the child she is to bear by the angel, Augustus decrees a mandatory census that everyone must travel to their ancestral land to register. Joseph being a jew, and of the house of David then takes Pregnant Mary to Bethlehem with him. While there, since there was no room in the inn, Jesus is born in the manger. After everything they have to do, the go back to Nazareth.
Not only are the 2 accounts totally different, but we know for a fact that Jesus, and his ministry was from a little town under Roman rule in Judea in which Greek and Latin were not spoken by the inhabitants. If the blue collar workers that became the disciples and apostles, (with exception of Matthew he was a tax collector) were not Roman, and were not educated in literature, or writing, then it does not make sense as to why we do not have any copies in Aramaic, only Greek, the language of the Wealthy and Educated Romans. Also, the copies that we do have are of at least 30-60 years after the death of Jesus.
Ironically, the messiah that the Jews expect is nothing like Jesus. Isaiah 53, psalm 22, etc. never once mention the Christ, or messiah. We have ascribed those passages to fit "the messiah", in reality the actual context is far away from what we modern Christians believe them to be. It is quite laughable, I once saw a video of a dude walking around in Jerusalem, reading this passage to the Jewish people passing by in the streets, trying to see if they would realize that the Prophecy was hinting at Jesus. Poor guy, he meant well, but his ignorance is too much.
A lot of those passages are believed to reference Jesus because the Christian tradition has taught us so (kind of like Luke and Matthew forced "prophecy" onto Jesus' place of birth, as you have seen, they are 2 completely different accounts, and I gave you the ultra quick summary, I recommend you read the passages for yourself). Do you think that the Jewish people were just hard headed or rebellious or blinded by Satan to not believe Jesus as the Messiah?
You need to understand that in the Judaic tradition, the Messiah, or "anointed one" resembled an actual king and warrior. Not a criminal peasant that would suffer for others. Go and look up in the Tanak the actual passages that mention the Messiah or anointed one. Take a look at an interlinear translation of these passages so you can see what "Messiah" means.. 2 Samuel 1:21 Daniel 9:25
Daniel 9:26.
Not only is the Messiah portrayed as a prince in Daniel, but in any of the passages that Christians have used to "prove" or connect Jesus to being the annointed one, the actual term being מָשִׁ֣יחַ (Messiah) is not mentioned directly.
Jews can read, and they understand their books, we just changed the ascription with tradition.
Do you see where I am coming from?
7
I'll make it brief
obviously I do understand what the Jews expected or I would not have written what I did regarding the Roman occupation...did you miss that?
I see no problem with what the Tanach states in the references above. I see a problem with misrepresentation by those who are not saved, who do not believe and do not have the Spirit of God . Daniel is a prophetic book so people often make of it what they will.
Messiah means 'anointed one'. I have probably looked up more things and read more things than you currently know about so maybe don't assume what I do or do not know. it's not helpful
you seem to make a deal out of the word Messiah...you do understand that Jesus has many titles? King of kings being one?
nobody forced the birth of Jesus into the gospels in order to agree with prophecy
to achieve the spectacular mashup of rebuttal that Erhman has managed and the fact he has become somewhat the delight of the liberal and anti-God crowd, he has turned his back on God and now calls himself an agnostic
he is as much an evangelist of his doctrine as any Christian preacher but I suppose it takes a little insight to see that?
his 'research' has been abundantly refuted and by people who actually know what they are talking about.
following is from another site. I understand fully you may prefer to believe the agnostic, but I prefer to believe men who are Christian, who have the Holy Spirit indwelling them and are not in a state of flux as is Erhman.
Whereas Ehrman asserts that the early church ebbed and flowed in its beliefs about Jesus from a man exalted to heaven, to an angel who became human, to a pre-existent "divine" person who became incarnate, to a subordinated god, to being declared one with God Almighty; in contrast, Simon Gathercole and Chris Tilling show that many of these assertions do not stand up to scrutiny. Instead, they contend, biblical authors are remarkably consistent in their identification of Jesus with the God of Israel.
source
in the end all things are a matter of faith. a person can have faith in themself, another person or a Creator
I am pretty familiar with the Bible and even I, reading some of what Erhman writes, know he takes things out of context and is a little too hasty to prove the Bible unfaithful to its intended purpose
are you familiar with their history? that should explain what happened
The Bible says Jesus came to His own (the Jews) but they did not receive Him. as far as being blinded by satan, he is the god of this world and holds the hearts of those who reject God.
there are really only 2 choices in this world and history itself reflects that over and over and over again
no one can make the choice for you. however, what you partake of, will be the foundation you create.
I had started a thread to discuss these things...but it seems no one is interested
that figures. most here seem to just want to express their own views and be right. a discussion where you have to do research and think, is not up to the task of another grand arguement
there is nothing wrong with thinking, asking questions and pounding on the door of heaven
God is not deaf or blind.
I agree with you, it is appropriate to clarify that placement of verses 34-35 in different parts of the text (after verse 33 and after 40) says that in the early stages of the manuscript tradition these verses were interpolated into the text, and the scribes put the insert spontaneously. The "migration" of a part of the text is usually a sign of its unauthenticity.
-
1
- Show all
S
I'm a woman and I agree that a woman shouldn't lead the church, teach other men or have authority over them. There are many verses to back that up..
BUT a woman can teach children, other women and can evangelise to all people.
Also, we are a church, a family. God created a church for a reason. If you like it or not(if you are Christian) you are a member of the church.
Not going to church is actually disobedience. We benefit from the gifts God gives His children at church. We are there not only to receive but also to give. We aren't made to be self-sufficient, we are not. We are a body in Christ.
BUT a woman can teach children, other women and can evangelise to all people.
Also, we are a church, a family. God created a church for a reason. If you like it or not(if you are Christian) you are a member of the church.
Not going to church is actually disobedience. We benefit from the gifts God gives His children at church. We are there not only to receive but also to give. We aren't made to be self-sufficient, we are not. We are a body in Christ.
-
1
- Show all
S
When you are bias towards Christianity you will only search for a source or a theory to validate it. Ehrman's writings are disinterested as far as proving any one side of the argument to be true. He presents things that most likely happened, based on what we do know. Now, I don't take everything I read and hold it dear to my heart; no. I pick and chose certain ideas and statements and I carry those to a further refinement process and try to expand my knowledge on that specific idea. The reason I mention this is because I have validated much of the early church facts that Ehrman talks about by looking into the sources he provides and then expanding on them. Erhman is very careful to communicate well established and generally accepted material, he is not some fringe conspiracy theorist. As far as Jesus' personality and Deity evolving through the early centuries of Christianity we know for a fact that there were multiple Christians and Judaeo-Christian sects. There are different theories as to why the Proto-Orthodox view won (trinity, Jesus is God, disregard the law completely, etc.). One thing that we do know though, is the fact that the winning view happened to be the most organized and the most educated, consequently consisting of all higher class, educated men.
You ignored much of my factual statements in my previous post where I talked about the Greek and the discrepancy in how Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Look, I was a christian for a long time, it is pretty much all I had ever known. I fell into a deep depression when I started looking into these things and I did not want them to be true. I later realized that most Christians do the same thing I did for a long time; ignore things that make us uncomfortable.
I decided to go against the grain, after all, if I studied these things and still came out the other end with my faith still clinging, it would only make me more faithful.
You then diverted back to the same answer i've gotten my whole life - "Holy Spirit" is the answer.
I can't trust anything that was written unless it was by someone endowed with the HS? How do I know that someone indeed has the spirit of God in them? Considering that I too "felt" the holy spirit, "spoke in tongues", (now I think it was just the ecstasy of the environment, the predisposition, and the fact that many around were doing it) would talk to Jesus as if he was right there, and yet, look where I've ended up. Would the holy spirit allow all these things? Are we incapable of being critical unless the Holy Spirit is the basis for judgement?
I am not saying I am right. All I'm saying is that based on the things I'm unearthing, and the patterns I'm learning to recognize, it is extremely difficult to ignore the fact that Christianity is very much like politics, except that justification for validation of ideas comes with an automatic seal of approval, and if denied, you risk roasting for ever and ever. Keep in mind that even in today's day and age, the church is nowhere near being unified. If the creator was truly behind this and not man, I think we'd see more unity and less bickering, I mean have you looked at some of the threads on this site?
-
1
- Show all
S
You obviously don't have authority over me, as you are not an elder in my church, nor my husband. I never said that. And in any case that authority has its limits. The ultimate authority is The Word of God. Elders/pastors/leaders must submit to it.
There are verses where it says a women mustn't teach men at church, to be quiet etc...the requirements for elders in the church(which should have full knowledge of the Word to teach, rebuke, etc..) are also for men. I'm sure you know the verses.. What I don't see are the verses that defend what you are saying. (that women can teach and preach to men at church? ). Not to offend.
But hey! we don't need to see things the same way at all..or do we? I'm not trying to convince anyone. And the fact that I said Im a woman obviously doesnt make me more right on the subject. Just saying I dont get offended by Gods Word and His order in things.
Let us be convinced in our own mind. We will all be accountable to God one day.
Peace above all things. GBU
There are verses where it says a women mustn't teach men at church, to be quiet etc...the requirements for elders in the church(which should have full knowledge of the Word to teach, rebuke, etc..) are also for men. I'm sure you know the verses.. What I don't see are the verses that defend what you are saying. (that women can teach and preach to men at church? ). Not to offend.
But hey! we don't need to see things the same way at all..or do we? I'm not trying to convince anyone. And the fact that I said Im a woman obviously doesnt make me more right on the subject. Just saying I dont get offended by Gods Word and His order in things.
Let us be convinced in our own mind. We will all be accountable to God one day.
Peace above all things. GBU
You obviously don't have authority over me, as you are not an elder in my church, nor my husband. I never said that. And in any case that authority has its limits. The ultimate authority is The Word of God. Elders/pastors/leaders must submit to it.
There are verses where it says a women mustn't teach men at church, to be quiet etc...the requirements for elders in the church(which should have full knowledge of the Word to teach, rebuke, etc..) are also for men. I'm sure you know the verses.. What I don't see are the verses that defend what you are saying. (that women can teach and preach to men at church? ). Not to offend.
But hey! we don't need to see things the same way at all..or do we? I'm not trying to convince anyone. And the fact that I said Im a woman obviously doesnt make me more right on the subject. Just saying I dont get offended by Gods Word and His order in things.
Let us be convinced in our own mind. We will all be accountable to God one day.
Peace above all things. GBU
There are verses where it says a women mustn't teach men at church, to be quiet etc...the requirements for elders in the church(which should have full knowledge of the Word to teach, rebuke, etc..) are also for men. I'm sure you know the verses.. What I don't see are the verses that defend what you are saying. (that women can teach and preach to men at church? ). Not to offend.
But hey! we don't need to see things the same way at all..or do we? I'm not trying to convince anyone. And the fact that I said Im a woman obviously doesnt make me more right on the subject. Just saying I dont get offended by Gods Word and His order in things.
Let us be convinced in our own mind. We will all be accountable to God one day.
Peace above all things. GBU
Susi...Where are the verses? I mean the ones not taken out of context. I mean I know of several verses used to keep women from rattling the cages of unsecure men, but where are the good ones? Yes, The elders should know the Word they are teaching but MOST teach Churchianity doctrines that don't line up with the Word.
And again you are right..We don't need to see things the same way....Any way that lines up with the Word is acceptable...and women 'shut up in church' is not one of them. There is, honestly, no place in the Bible that says women cannot teach, preach to men, and I really don't know why Christians stubbornly hang on to doctrines taught my demons like they do with this subject
S
Well...for u there are no verses that say women cant teach or preach to men at church, So whatever verse I put(which we all know which ones they are)will be verses taken out of context for you. You only want the 'good ones'. Which I wonder which are the bad ones and which are the good verses for you..
I don't see the point showing you any verses at all, as you will say they are out of context. So what's the point?
You are convinced in your mind. I'm convinced in mine. Lets just live out what we believe and respect each other hey !
I don't see the point showing you any verses at all, as you will say they are out of context. So what's the point?
You are convinced in your mind. I'm convinced in mine. Lets just live out what we believe and respect each other hey !
-
1
- Show all
Well...for u there are no verses that say women cant teach or preach to men at church, So whatever verse I put(which we all know which ones they are)will be verses taken out of context for you. You only want the 'good ones'. Which I wonder which are the bad ones and which are the good verses for you..
I don't see the point showing you any verses at all, as you will say they are out of context. So what's the point?
You are convinced in your mind. I'm convinced in mine. Lets just live out what we believe and respect each other hey !
I don't see the point showing you any verses at all, as you will say they are out of context. So what's the point?
You are convinced in your mind. I'm convinced in mine. Lets just live out what we believe and respect each other hey !
Well...for u there are no verses that say women cant teach or preach to men at church, So whatever verse I put(which we all know which ones they are)will be verses taken out of context for you. You only want the 'good ones'. Which I wonder which are the bad ones and which are the good verses for you..
I don't see the point showing you any verses at all, as you will say they are out of context. So what's the point?
You are convinced in your mind. I'm convinced in mine. Lets just live out what we believe and respect each other hey !
I don't see the point showing you any verses at all, as you will say they are out of context. So what's the point?
You are convinced in your mind. I'm convinced in mine. Lets just live out what we believe and respect each other hey !
-
1
- Show all
When a single verse is used to build a doctrine, you can bet that it's out of context...Check it, read from the beginning of the teaching and you will see what he's talking about...Paul was NOT saying that women should not teach, preach, or minister in the congregation. Simple as that. He was answering some preacher that says he does not allow it because it was in the law...and believe it or not...It's not in Jewish law.
I was not referring to a particular post but was just offering my observations about the Bible Discussion Forum after 4 years of being a member. As far a Paul is concerned, there is a big difference between saying that he does not permit such and such a thing and saying that God does not permit it. That des not mean that his writing was not inspired but indeed it was by the Holy Spirit as with everything else in the Word of God. I believe that Paul was offering his opinion that was based on his own personal bias, culture, tradition and understanding. Personally, I don't see how it is a sin by having a woman who feels led by the Holy Spirit to teach about God to a man who is hungry for spiritual nourishment, whether in a church setting or outside the church.
-
1
- Show all
7
I have no bias towards Christianity. I do not search for theories to validate it. Years ago I read a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the cave in Qumrun. I have the picture so stop invalidating what I said.
No I did not ignore them. In fact I answered you. there are answers for everything and the Bible is not the mashup of mistakes you are being led to think it is.
I never said Galileans spoke Greek or Latin. That is not what I said at all. you know, I spent some time putting my response together but I don't have time to waste.
I did not say the Holy Spirit is the answer. You remind me of a drowning man at this point. Someone is trying to save his life and they are holding out a life preserver and the drowning man will not take it. He just keeps crying out 'help I'm drowning'.
do you think you are the only one who has had ever had a crisis of faith? I'm sure you don't. or do you think you are the only who has ever said they were done with Christianity...and walked away with the hope that maybe somewhere there is a God or maybe they believed in God but not in Christians?
if there were no more books in the world and your life was in danger would you call on an author to save you? a man like yourself? or would you call on God in whatever vague realm you thought He might exist in? that's a real question. and some of us have faced it square on. it has been said there are no agnostics in the trenches during a war. some will curse God and some will finally cry out for mercy
I'm not much on emotions when it comes for proof of something.
I did not say you cannot trust anything written unless it was written by someone endowed with the Holy Spirit. You bet that God would allow you to be right where you are. If He had said to you 'don't go there. don't read those books. would you have listened? most of us do not listen. I have not listened and suffered for it.
however the Holy Spirit is real but God does not force us. God's word is the basis for judgement but you do not believe that anymore. the Holy Spirit is many things to believers but He is not stopping people from going forward with even the worst decision of their life. that is not a direct reference to you. you are far from alone. there are many bad decisions a person can make, Christian or no. we can talk ourselves into most anything.
I certainly do not practice whatever version of Christianity you disdain. doesn't sound like anything I would agree with anyway
when we way church, we need to look at the world...past, present and future
will there be Chinese, Russian, Africans, Eskimos and every other nation represented? yes there will be.
I try to keep a bigger picture in mind...I don't try to find my answers...and believe me, I got some deep questions, here or in church
I have participated in the threads on this site and so yes, haha, I have looked at them.
we cannot look at another and disbelieve God because of the other.
ps...please overlook spelling mistakes if there are some. I'm not checking it
No I did not ignore them. In fact I answered you. there are answers for everything and the Bible is not the mashup of mistakes you are being led to think it is.
I never said Galileans spoke Greek or Latin. That is not what I said at all. you know, I spent some time putting my response together but I don't have time to waste.
I did not say the Holy Spirit is the answer. You remind me of a drowning man at this point. Someone is trying to save his life and they are holding out a life preserver and the drowning man will not take it. He just keeps crying out 'help I'm drowning'.
do you think you are the only one who has had ever had a crisis of faith? I'm sure you don't. or do you think you are the only who has ever said they were done with Christianity...and walked away with the hope that maybe somewhere there is a God or maybe they believed in God but not in Christians?
if there were no more books in the world and your life was in danger would you call on an author to save you? a man like yourself? or would you call on God in whatever vague realm you thought He might exist in? that's a real question. and some of us have faced it square on. it has been said there are no agnostics in the trenches during a war. some will curse God and some will finally cry out for mercy
I'm not much on emotions when it comes for proof of something.
I did not say you cannot trust anything written unless it was written by someone endowed with the Holy Spirit. You bet that God would allow you to be right where you are. If He had said to you 'don't go there. don't read those books. would you have listened? most of us do not listen. I have not listened and suffered for it.
however the Holy Spirit is real but God does not force us. God's word is the basis for judgement but you do not believe that anymore. the Holy Spirit is many things to believers but He is not stopping people from going forward with even the worst decision of their life. that is not a direct reference to you. you are far from alone. there are many bad decisions a person can make, Christian or no. we can talk ourselves into most anything.
I certainly do not practice whatever version of Christianity you disdain. doesn't sound like anything I would agree with anyway
when we way church, we need to look at the world...past, present and future
will there be Chinese, Russian, Africans, Eskimos and every other nation represented? yes there will be.
I try to keep a bigger picture in mind...I don't try to find my answers...and believe me, I got some deep questions, here or in church
I have participated in the threads on this site and so yes, haha, I have looked at them.
we cannot look at another and disbelieve God because of the other.
ps...please overlook spelling mistakes if there are some. I'm not checking it
-
1
- Show all