Not all verses are divine, anyone can become a christ:

Dan1 · August 2, 2006, 4:11pm

geocities.com/questioningpage/Bible2.html

The second translation of that first verse is the only one which makes sense.

Critic of the bible attacks the idea that the bible is perfect & the word-of-god, and the defenders try to back-up that idea in some way or another.

But, if not all of the books of the bible were divinely inspired, wouldn’t bible critic just root out the crap?

All of the non-sense, firstly, should be rooted out.

Paul, for example, claimed to be Christian, but the miracle which he claimed to have experienced – only he saw. Before that he was killing christians. Then, he desided to change them and use them instead of killing them. Paul wrote around half of the new-testimate.

We can throw Paul out.

Next, we through out which ever parts of the bible that contradict the other parts. Example: “thou shalt not kill”, and then god supposedly kills thousands of people. Sounds like bullshit to me. Let’s say that the people died from natural causes, like a plague or something, then terror-inspiring religions terds blaimed it on god and screamed for submission/guilt.

~

The 7 marks of a christ.

Inability to kill/harm others.
Disgust with bad-leadership, corruption and false religion…
Love for all creation [thus love for its creator].
Desire for reasonable equality & moderation.
Courage.
Inner strength.
Wisdom.

After developing a deep enough understanding and connection with all life, he will begin to realise what it needs most, therefor will know the meaning of its creator.
If you’d studied thousands of musical works be a certain artist, through that, you could come to know his personality and his will. This also applies to learning about the origin and meaning of all things.

These seven steps are all that really matter.
The power of love and the faith in the higher, invisible meanings in the universe – are the paths towards becoming christ-like.

Jesus overturned the money-tabels of the money-makers in the temple because he hated religion being turned into a money-making-scam.
He’d probably break the studio of a televangelist if he got his hands on their equipment, because of how disgraceful it is to misrepresent the origin and meaning of all life on earth.

Jesus couldn’t physically help everybody on earth, but he could help some of them.
In the same way, a imitator of christ can help some people on earth, but as that fallower honors life and denounces corruption, his life wont be very easy.

Jesus’s healing on the sabath shows that people’s health is more important then any law. Overly strict Jews would have killed someone for doing work on the sabath day. That’s rubbish.

Becoming a christ doesn’t mean save-the-world, it means save, salvation, etc.
All acts of salvation, big or small, are the works of a christ.

Disciple_of_light · August 3, 2006, 1:44pm

.

Should,nt that say becoming “the christ” , I believe “christ” means annointed one , you would,nt become “a annointed one” but “the annointed one” no ?

.

Oni_Omega · August 3, 2006, 10:03pm

some christsians already think this, i think its written somewhere in the bible that we are god.

Dan1 · August 3, 2006, 11:27pm

You are your parents.

Simple, isn’t it?

Coming closer to god is self-advancement, honor and pride toward self, opening of all chakras and potential, creation of spirits and material bodies, etc.

christianthinker · August 9, 2006, 5:16pm

Dan~:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” So we have a claim here. But a claim is not proof, is it?

I think that II Timothy 3:16 does not count as significant evidence that the Bible is God’s word. First, we don’t know what books the author is referring to as scripture. He does not tell us. What do you think he refers to? The 66 books of the Protestant Bible? What makes you think he means those books? Unless he defines what he is talking about, how can we know what he thinks is inspired?

Second, the passage has alternate translations. It could mean, “All scripture that is inspired of God is profitable.”

geocities.com/questioningpage/Bible2.html

The second translation of that first verse is the only one which makes sense.

Critic of the bible attacks the idea that the bible is perfect & the word-of-god, and the defenders try to back-up that idea in some way or another.

But, if not all of the books of the bible were divinely inspired, wouldn’t bible critic just root out the crap?

All of the non-sense, firstly, should be rooted out.

Paul, for example, claimed to be Christian, but the miracle which he claimed to have experienced – only he saw. Before that he was killing christians. Then, he desided to change them and use them instead of killing them. Paul wrote around half of the new-testimate.

We can throw Paul out.

Next, we through out which ever parts of the bible that contradict the other parts. Example: “thou shalt not kill”, and then god supposedly kills thousands of people. Sounds like bullshit to me. Let’s say that the people died from natural causes, like a plague or something, then terror-inspiring religions terds blaimed it on god and screamed for submission/guilt.

~

The 7 marks of a christ.

Inability to kill/harm others.

Disgust with bad-leadership, corruption and false religion…

Love for all creation [thus love for its creator].

Desire for reasonable equality & moderation.

Courage.

Inner strength.

Wisdom.

After developing a deep enough understanding and connection with all life, he will begin to realise what it needs most, therefor will know the meaning of its creator.
If you’d studied thousands of musical works be a certain artist, through that, you could come to know his personality and his will. This also applies to learning about the origin and meaning of all things.

These seven steps are all that really matter.
The power of love and the faith in the higher, invisible meanings in the universe – are the paths towards becoming christ-like.

Jesus overturned the money-tabels of the money-makers in the temple because he hated religion being turned into a money-making-scam.
He’d probably break the studio of a televangelist if he got his hands on their equipment, because of how disgraceful it is to misrepresent the origin and meaning of all life on earth.

Jesus couldn’t physically help everybody on earth, but he could help some of them.
In the same way, a imitator of christ can help some people on earth, but as that fallower honors life and denounces corruption, his life wont be very easy.

Jesus’s healing on the sabath shows that people’s health is more important then any law. Overly strict Jews would have killed someone for doing work on the sabath day. That’s rubbish.

Becoming a christ doesn’t mean save-the-world, it means save, salvation, etc.
All acts of salvation, big or small, are the works of a christ.

actually, if you even read the accounts where God smote the people, it was after warning them for sometimes many years in advance, then when they didn’t change, He fulfilled His promises.

Please explain your reasoning for “throwing Paul out”. I’m not quite sure I understand. Sorry if it’s obvious, it may be just I’m a little slow at the moment.

Anyway, I completely agree with you on the subject of the televangelists, etc. Good job.

God bless .

The_Watcher · August 9, 2006, 7:26pm

Breaking a law you yourself have porclaimed for others to follow is Hypocriticle, Even if you have Promised you were going to do it if the action did not cease.

If you warn somone that they will be punished for disobeying you and then punish them it is not hypocriticle until the law you have set forth for them to follow is broken by you.
Should then you not sufer the same consequence you have provided to those who broke the law to begin with?

What Dan~ is saying about paul is that it is his word agianst others. That only he saw th miricle and only he can proclaim it, There for it canot be a fact and may have merely been a way to manipulate the Christians into doing his will.

This being the theory you can not take what paul has writen in the bible literaly or as matter of factly because his motives on this matter are in question. While he caould have easily truly experianced it he could have also made it up. If I remember corectly the Paul being spoken about used to be Saul. And I do not think This man ever even saw Jesus (I could be wrong. There was also a Deciple Paul but I believe that is a diferent man).
So if this is the case who is this man to write about and to be taken literaly on a subject of a man he never met?

Ned_Flanders · August 9, 2006, 8:55pm

You guys really need to start reading a bible before you start whining about it. Where does it say that ONLY Paul saw the miracle. Here is the account…

Acts 9
3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." 7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

The passage clearly notes the presence of others. Where did you get the idea that Paul was alone?

christianthinker · August 9, 2006, 10:30pm

The Watcher:

Breaking a law you yourself have porclaimed for others to follow is Hypocriticle, Even if you have Promised you were going to do it if the action did not cease.

If you warn somone that they will be punished for disobeying you and then punish them it is not hypocriticle until the law you have set forth for them to follow is broken by you.
Should then you not sufer the same consequence you have provided to those who broke the law to begin with?

What Dan~ is saying about paul is that it is his word agianst others. That only he saw th miricle and only he can proclaim it, There for it canot be a fact and may have merely been a way to manipulate the Christians into doing his will.

This being the theory you can not take what paul has writen in the bible literaly or as matter of factly because his motives on this matter are in question. While he caould have easily truly experianced it he could have also made it up. If I remember corectly the Paul being spoken about used to be Saul. And I do not think This man ever even saw Jesus (I could be wrong. There was also a Deciple Paul but I believe that is a diferent man).
So if this is the case who is this man to write about and to be taken literaly on a subject of a man he never met?

addin to what NF wrote, even if he were alone, people still noticed a change in him. before that, he was persecuting Christians, and suddenly he stopped. hmmm, you think they would have been wondering what the heck happened to him?

also, nevermind that he was tortured, imprisoned, and eventually killed for something he was supposedly using against the Christians. shouldn’t that ring a bell that something must have happened?

The_Watcher · August 16, 2006, 6:51pm

I was not attacking the Bible I was translateing a statement (That was not even written by me) into a viewpoint that could be more easily understood. So do not attack me.

And ned the metaphorical representation of that verse and the way it is written says in itself that “he” alone saw this miricle. You yourself just proved that with your own verse and your own Bible…Congradulations.

I am “WELL” aware of what is writen in the Bible and what Should be but has been left out. Mainly the other 32 some odd books and scriptures that the Scribes thought were unimportant or conflicted there own personal oppinions or belief so they were left out.

Club29 · August 16, 2006, 10:30pm

It’s written nowhere in the bible that we are God, you can misunderstand context however, that is part of our(fallible)selves.

Back in Genisis Adam and Eve tried to become God and look what it got them.