Originally posted by CalJust
Perhaps that IS what I am saying....

Or at least, something along these lines: "with my current understanding and knowledge of the Bible, THIS is what I understand truth to be. However, I readily admit that I may, at a future date, by the grace of God, experience more insights and better understanding."

My views of the following doctrines have c ...[text shortened]... book, or talking to someone, that you have had an AHA! moment and new things opened up to you?

Honest question: Have YOU ever experienced it that either sitting in a meeting, or reading a book, or talking to someone, that you have had an AHA! moment and new things opened up to you?

Definitely, yes. And, personally, I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, nor am I a fundamentalist. That said, however, I do believe that, with careful study, the Bible reveals a remarkably clear and consistent orthodoxy. If we approach scripture without presuppositions as to what it actually teaches, I believe we can find out precisely what it meant to be a Christian in the early church, and thereby understand what being a Christian should mean still. Which, in my mind, is immensely important, because if you can't say precisely what you believe, or define precisely what a Christian is, any sort of doctrine might be rightly considered orthodoxy. That said, I don't mean to imply that there is no room for any "AHA" moments; in the life of the believer scripture ought to be a source of endless discovery (it has been in my case). The great truths of scripture can be understood from an intellectual standpoint, like anything else, but it is another thing altogether to meditate on them and have your awareness profoundly altered in the process.

Originally posted by RJHinds
From wikipedia:
Gnosticism is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual
practices common to early Christianity, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman
mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), and Neoplatonism.

From Catholic Encycopedia:
Gnosticism: A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and
pantheistic ...[text shortened]... return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the
appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

the catholics aren't real christians either.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the catholics aren't real christians either.

There may be some Catholics that are true Christians. I can not say for
sure that all Catholics are not true Christians.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There may be some Catholics that are true Christians. I can not say for
sure that all Catholics are not true Christians.

you're not a true christian either.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, nor am I a fundamentalist. That said, however, I do believe that, with careful study, the Bible reveals a remarkably clear and consistent orthodoxy. If we approach scripture without presuppositions as to what it actually teaches, I believe we can find out precisely what it meant to be a Christian in the early chur ...[text shortened]... g altogether to meditate on them and have your awareness profoundly altered in the process.

Actually, I can't find fault with anything you said - pretty much what I believe.

I have found that Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" pretty much sums it up for me, although some would say he has some unorthodox views!

🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
New wine is like grape juice. It has very low alcohol content.

Where did you get this 'new' wine idea from? Certainly not the bible - the word used there is 'oinon' - in fact the stuff Jesus is supposed to have miraculously produced is 'kalon oinon'. Not 'new' wine, but 'good' wine.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you're not a true christian either.

I believe I am a true Christian, however Jesus must be the judge of that.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Where did you get this 'new' wine idea from? Certainly not the bible - the word used there is 'oinon' - in fact the stuff Jesus is supposed to have miraculously produced is 'kalon oinon'. Not 'new' wine, but 'good' wine.

Matthew 9:17 speaks of new wine. And good wine refers to the taste
and not a high alcohol content.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Matthew 9:17 speaks of new wine. And good wine refers to the taste
and not a high alcohol content.

Here is Matthew 9:17:

"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

Now tell me, hand on heart, do you honestly think that is a reference to low alcohol wine?

"And good wine refers to the taste and not a high alcohol content."

Precisely my point. No mention of it being low-alcohol wine.

Originally posted by menace71
I don't think war is the first or best solution to anything BUT the fact remains were in a fallen world. So do not defend the ones who can't defend themselves!! Let tyranny rule ok. A pillow fight was not going to stop Hitler and if not for the allied effort Britain was next then America. I don't think killing is right but the value is in man being created ...[text shortened]... defending others than saying I did nothing at all!! No JW paradise for me I guess.


Manny

Our stance can be summed up by the following quotation,

I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill - Gandhi

The issue is settled for us, we shall not take the life of another human being, life is
sacrosanct to God, no amount of postulation or moralising can change this fact. We
have every faith that Gods Kingdom shall effectively eradicate tyranny and that Christ
Jesus shall effectively repay any injustices suffered. Its a matter of faith.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Honest question: Have YOU ever experienced it that either sitting in a meeting, or reading a book, or talking to someone, that you have had an AHA! moment and new things opened up to you?

Definitely, yes. And, personally, I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, nor am I a fundamentalist. That said, however, I do believe that, with careful stud g altogether to meditate on them and have your awareness profoundly altered in the process.[/b]

If we approach scripture without presuppositions as to what it actually teaches!, Epi

haha, from an avowed trinitarian more accustomed to giving credence to uninspired
doctrines and church traditions, that was highly amusing top notch entertainment!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Gnostics were not true Christians.

Neither was Jesus of Nazareth. Your opinion is not relevant.

Originally posted by RJHinds
From wikipedia:
Gnosticism is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual
practices common to early Christianity, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman
mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), and Neoplatonism.

From Catholic Encycopedia:
Gnosticism: A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and
pantheistic ...[text shortened]... return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the
appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

I don't think Dr. Pagels would agree with this definition...you probably have not read any of Dr. Pagels' books, I take it? You really should learn something about early Christianity before commenting. It's ok to say that you know nothing about the Nag Hammadi writings. It's not really ok to pretend you know squat about the subject at hand by use of Cntl-C Cntl-V. You're just magnifying your gross ignorance of the subject in doing so.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe I am a true Christian, however Jesus must be the judge of that.

jesus is not a true christian either.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
jesus is not a true christian either.

Jesus was the Christ, the way the truth,and the life.