I was just trying to supply you with a verse that is in the Bible that talks about ascension.

I am perfectly fine talking about God and the Bible without being rude. Interpretation is something that changes from person to person. However if I type out any verse there is a high probability that it can be refuted with something to the contrary. I do not take every word as literal truth, how can I with parables?

As far as time periods in the Bible there are other examples of misinterpretation such as 'turning the other cheek'. It was a sign of defiance and not mercy, kind of like saying "go ahead I dare you to do that again". As a believer I can not discount everything in the Book as fiction and a fairy tale collaboration. I have played with the thought that books could be changed at anytime through translation and additions. The fact that human men chose the books to be in the Bible bothers me, and to assume that they were Godly scholars is a matter of opinion. I personally try to stick to Matthew and the old Testament.

This was copied from a website:
Paul wrote, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you..." (1 Cor. 11:23). The writers of the New Testament wrote by inspiration. The words they penned were given by the direct revelation of God (2 Timothy 3:16,17). He told them what to say and how to say it. When the inspired men of the first century wrote, the product of their work was immediately acknowledged and accepted by those in the church. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42) and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

How does one know that the Lord inspired these writers for sure?

My other query cant be answered properly either. It seems that trough the centuries the understanding of what God and Jesus are has changed. So which generation is correct on its interpretation and therefore has the real understanding of salvation and thus be allowed into heaven.

There is doctrine about 'inviting Jesus into your heart' to which I cant find a verse anywhere. Also tithing 10% is not found.

You see I question the reason why I believe something. I usually get my answers as long as I do not listen to what someone else's interpretation is (pastor, or other men). That being said, there is no way anyone has the Bible figured out front to back. So do any of us really understand what God is? He is love, has no beginning and no end etc. So one must have faith in some way and put the very critical thinking mind on the back burner and accept. I have been told this over and over. Perhaps we were designed to never really understand any of it?

I guess thats where a 'personal relationship' with God comes in since I feel he has given me a mind to seek him out and come to a conclusion. If God/Jesus was black and white there would not be a pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib philosophy, it would be definite.

Does any of this make sense to anyone. I just typed what I was thinking without much thought into a point or flow. 🙂

@prom

Who are you referring to?

Gravlore; I believe I understand what you said (I hope) and it was not chaotic.

Keeping with the spirit of Prom's wise words; I also agree with these thoughts.
We won't all agree on everything and the Rapture is only one example 😳
There are probably as many other things that we would agree on.

@prom

Who are you referring to?

OK, I should have put a disclaimer. I'm not talking about anybody on the list in particular. I hope this will answer your question.

I'm about to play the devils advocate here, and believe me that some people have called me a Satanist for what I have written, for saying the truth of which they preferred not to hear, or chose not to believe. I do not follow blindly what the church has taught us, for we all know how truthful the CHURCH has been in the past 1500 years.

Did you know that most of the scriptures and writing of the bible, were not even written until around 70 Anno Domini ( or birth of Jesus of Nazareth ). So all of these stories of Jesus were verbal for over 30 years after his death. At that time only 1/500 people were literate, and most of these people were Greek or transcribe in Latin. Now after 30 years of retelling and passing on these stories that they are not embellished, and the truth stretched to make Jesus of Nazareth more than he was. Have you heard the term "Lost in translation" or the changing of the word when translated from Hebrew to Greek or Latin. Often the scribe would write down what they thought the authors meant. Now as time flows by, and the dialect changes so too the meaning of words, so much so that scholars argue at the true meanings of ancient languages. This is true, especially depending on the region that the scribes came from or taught by. Even the year that Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly born is not truly known due to the fact that these transcribes were never found but was written down for the apostles some 30 years after his death and on mention of which ruler was in power at that time. Man created and edited the BIBLE.
The end of the world was suppose to be 2000 A.D., well were still here, but wait, revelations, now it will be 12,12, 2012. The calendar was not truly formed until after 500 AD, of which the calendar was only corrected when it snowed during the summer solstice. So how in all the things said to be holy, do they REALLY KNOW. So believe what you may, and if truth is blasphemy , then, we will all rot in hell. 😐
While I’m here, turn down the heat, the Maple Leafs will never win the Stanley cup unless Hell freezes over. 😈

incoming RPG!!!

Yes I sense that this discussion has reached a conclusion.

You know it will come up again. Always will. I personally love different viewpoints even if I do not share the same view. Prom did not list a name so its kind of a non-starter. One can only assume (I originally thought it was me). Dang and I had a convo and while one can assume the other is typing in hostility, that may not be the case. Perhaps people take things the right way when something comes at them from an attacking standpoint such as calling ones beliefs non-sense (that goes for both ends of the table). If given an intelligent dialog I can talk (type) and debate ones reasons for believing or not believing something. Otherwise we end up in our own little box never understanding what it is we believe and why. Please keep the thread open.

@prom - I don't appreciate your "labelling" of what you think I am.

I know who I am and am very comfortable with that, I don't need you nor "God" to tell me otherwise.

AlbertaPrepper

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't "labelling" you. Actually you labelled yourself but you were doing it in a confusing way. I was just trying to help 🙂 . From your statement it wasn't clear whether you're an agnostic or an atheist. You said you were a non-believer which is the definition of an Atheist then you said you don't believe in a "God" which to me sounds more like an Agnostic, like "God or no God, I don't really care". And then you said you are neither an Atheist nor an Agnostic which made it even more confusing 🙂
Now labelling yourself in a discussion about religion and God is not a bad thing and I wouldn't call it labelling but more like stating your position on the matter. From what I've learned so far this are the only those 3 positions generally accepted when discussing God. If I'm wrong I would be more than glad to learn more on this.
I thought that if I post the definition and the source it would be more clear. I tried to explain it again now but if it's still not clear we should just leave it like this. I don't really care. Kinda like saying I'm an Agnostic on the issue 🙂 .

Prom did not list a name so its kind of a non-starter. One can only assume (I originally thought it was me).

I raised two issues on my post one was about secularism and the "religious nuts". How would I call somebody on the list that, when I have barely met a few people and talked about prepping. And all the opinions presented in this thread were all rational and decent. If somebody is a devoted practicant of a religion that doesn't make that person a religious nuts. It's like calling all the priests nuts and so many people who follow the word of God and that's far from me. The other issue was the sin of pride. Talking about somebody in particular would have meant calling that person a sinner and it would be exactly the opposite of what I was preaching, that sin is something between an individual and God and none of my business. So again, wasn't talking about anybody in particular. Sorry about the confusion.

Peace

I just love religion, it's great for starting wars. 😈 And may the force be with you.

I just love religion, it's great for starting wars. 😈 And may the force be with you.

Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people. Kinda like guns. And most religious wars used religion as a pretext but they started mostly for other reasons, like resources. Just my opinion.

May the force be with you too! 🙂

I think things here have run their course as well and some posts are taking a turn to the unhealthy side of the topic. Enough has been written that everyone has had a turn at "saying their piece" so I am locking this thread.