space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian 251 Replies latest jw friends

aChristian

Clash,
I'm afraid I have to agree with Alan, IW and Hillary. As Alan said, members of the cult known as "Fundamentalists" act as though "their interpretations of the Bible are perfect. They're exactly like the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." As IW said, fundamentalist Christians often "practice exclusion" and "use verbal billy clubs in order to make converts." And as Hillary said, "It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians are the greatest recruiters for the cause of atheism since the Russian Revolution."
You wrote: 1. Do you go to a BIBLE believing church?
Yes, I do.
You wrote: 2. Does YOUR church that you attend, in particular the elders subscribe to your particular doctrinal distinctive that you have mentioned on this board?
I have discussed most of my views (no global flood, an old earth and universe and the possibility that God used evolution as his means of creation) with the leadership of the last three Churches I have attended regularly. (We have moved twice in recent years.) One Church was a "Church of Christ." One was a United Methodist. The one we now attend is a "nondenominational Christian fellowship." Some of the men and women Church leaders (Yes, women) I have discussed my views with have agreed with them. Some have disagreed. But all have said that they have no problem with a Christian holding such understandings.
You wrote: What is wrong with people who completely believe the bible?
Nothing, clash. Nothing at all. Believe it or not, I do too. I believe the problem you have is that you equate the fundamentalists' interpretation of the Bible with what is actually written in the Bible. Just like JWs equate what their Governing Body says with what God says.
You wrote: But I do want to dialog on the issue of free will.
Clash, I will repeat what I wrote to you earlier. "I have little time to spend on this board. ... I do not believe that God requires Christians to understand all parts of the Bible ... in exactly the same way. ... I believe you now have salvation through Jesus Christ since you have faith in the power of His sacrificial death to atone for your sins. So I don't worry about you, Clash."
I hope you feel the same way about me. Besides, man's free will is a subject that I have little interest in discussing. Professional theologians have debated the matter for centuries. I'll let them continue doing so. The topic of this thread originally had to do with Noah's flood. I have here discussed various subject matters with Alan and others which logically sprung from a discussion of the flood. I don't see how a discussion of free will really does right now. I'll tell you what. I'll agree to discuss the subject of free will with you as much as you want after you here defend your belief that our planet was completely covered with water just a few thousand years ago. To do so, I would like you to answer the article point by point that is published here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Davis Young is an evangelical Christian and a professor of geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, not too far from where I live. Several years ago, shortly after I left the JWs, he was kind enough to speak with me at some length on the subject of the flood and on the subject of cults such as JWs. During our conversation he shared his strong faith in Christ with me and compared fundamentalism to the cults. I have also had several long conversations with another well known Christian scientist who made the same comparison.
In one of his books Davis Young wrote, "The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel. ... Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done."
Clash, scientific evidence proves, beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that our earth has not been completely covered with water at any time in mankind's history, and certainly not just a few thousand years ago as fundamentalists maintain. I believe that by continuing to insist that the Bible itself says that it was, you cause those here who believe you, to view the Bible as being completely untrustworthy. And since the Bible is the only book that tells them that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who gave His life to pay for their sins, they logically conclude that the Bible is quite likely wrong about that too. Is that really what you want to do? Because that is what you are doing, as evidenced by the comments of Alan, IW, Hillary and others I have seen you interact with on this board.
clash_city_rockers

I think we may have a failure to communicate.
I asked: "Do you go to a BIBLE believing church"
You Responded:
"Yes, I do.....The one we now attend is a "nondenominational Christian fellowship." Some of the men and women Church leaders (Yes, women) I have discussed my views with have agreed with them. Some have disagreed. But all have said that they have no problem with a Christian holding such understandings."
aChristian,
Maybe we mean two different things when we mean bible believing. Look I am going to give you a historic evangelical document that defines bible believing Inerrency if you believe all of it then everything is cool. Your cool and were are probably having a missunderstanding. If you do not believe or hold to all of this doctrinal statement then you are a liberal who has a LOW view of scripture and the polimical battle for the bible is on.
A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL
Article I
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
Article II
We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
Article III
We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.
Article IV
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.
Article V
We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
Article VII
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
Article VIII
We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.
Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
Article XII
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XIV
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
Article XV
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.
Article XVI
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.
We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
Article XVII
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.
Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
Article XIX
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.
BTW: This was the Chicago Statement on Inerrency
One more thing, women are not to be in leadership in the bible believing church. There is this book by bible belivers Wayne Grudem and John Piper that defends the biblical teaching of male headship and leadership. It is Called Recovering Biblical manhood and womenhood; Crossway Books; ISBN: 0891075860
Some advise, This book that I'm going to show you sucks stay away from this garbage aChristain you have no business reading this next book whick is crap....John Spong is a loser. He hates the bible
cellomould

Hey guys,
if you are interested in exploring a new topic, check out my whale thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=18279&site=3
No one has commented on this one seriously yet. Was this whalelike creature destroyed in the flood? he he that was rhetorical.
Just look at the pic if you are too bored to read about it.
ROFL 6 of 9!!!
Here is your lashing (simply count to 40 as the whip cracks down):
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
clash_city_rockers

Look there is an event coming to town http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.asp?Event_ID=456
Location
Calvary Baptist Church1200 28th St SEGrand Rapids, Michigan 49508 United States
Check it out unless your just as dishonest as the Governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. JW’s say “eeeew, that’s anti watchtower literature, I don’t want to look at that I’m too dishonest.” AChristian will you do the same? And say “eeeew, anti evolution literature, I don’t want to look at that, I’m too dishonest” As I say to the JW I say to you what are you afraid of check out the semanar that is coming to your town.
Back to business.
A Christian Posted in haste:
“I'm afraid I have to agree with Alan, IW and Hillary. As Alan said, members of the cult known as "Fundamentalists" act as though "their interpretations of the Bible are perfect. They're exactly like the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses." As IW said, fundamentalist Christians often "practice exclusion" and "use verbal billy clubs in order to make converts." And as Hillary said, "It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians are the greatest recruiters for the cause of atheism since the Russian Revolution."”
Response: So what is it aChristian, are you a Christian or are you an atheist? If you’re a Christian then you would have no common ground with atheist when it comes to the doctrine of creation. Why do you capitulate to the presuppositions and assertions of non-believers? Are you a crypto atheist that’s why you agree with and such close common ground with Hillary and her anti-biblical atheistic assertions? Look it is going to come down to one question for you.
Q: Is science more authoritative than the Bible?
A Christian posted demonstrating his lack of knowledge on the subject:
” I believe the problem you have is that you equate the fundamentalists' interpretation of the Bible with what is actually written in the Bible.”
Response: So what are the rules of biblical interpretation? Have you read or studied biblical herminudics before. Do you understand the categories of contents, syntax, literary genre, historical setting, analogy of faith (scripture interpret scripture). How do you know your not reading the bible moralisticly? Can you explain the redemptive intention of the biblical authors? Your only schooling in biblical interpretation was the Kingdom Ministry School. Look I’m not trying to pick on you but you are making the same mistakes as Chuck Russell did 130 years ago. If you claim to be a Christian then you are not alone you have a covenant community that has thought out these issues that you are trying to work out. Two books I strongly recommend anyone who leaves the WT get.
1. Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul, 1977 IVP books, ISBN 0877847339
2. Getting the Message by Daniel M. Doriani, 1996 P&R books, ISBN 0875522386
Trying to appeal to authority (which in itself is not a bad thing) aChristian posts:
“Davis Young is an evangelical Christian and a professor of geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, not too far from where I live. Several years ago, shortly after I left the JWs, he was kind enough to speak with me at some length on the subject of the flood and on the subject of cults such as JWs. During our conversation he shared his strong faith in Christ with me and compared fundamentalism to the cults. I have also had several long conversations with another well known Christian scientist who made the same comparison.”
Response: Your trying to be slick by misrepresenting views of certain institutions just like the WT has. Calvin College and its Graduate Seminary have not given any official position on the creation/evolution issue. Sadly I have to say the Christian Reformed Church, (the denominational parent of Calvin Seminary and College) is slowly slipping into apostasy by denying the infallibility of the bible, approving of women pastors, the abandonment of preaching in the services, and its leaking Calvinism. Basically to say it’s slipping into mainline protestant liberalism. That’s not to say that Calvin Seminary has a couple of very good bible teachers. Prof. Richard Gamble, Rodger Greenway(great missions man), Sidney Greidandus (Whom I recommend you get tips from in biblical interpretation, he is great on historic redemptive theology) and Richard Muller (very good reformation historian). Calvin Seminary is located on 3233 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Now to address Dr. Young’s ill advised comment. To compare fundies with the cults is a generalization made in haste. Sure there are fundies who are cultic. But there are those who just believe the bible they are not moralist who like their booze, rock music, secular movies(even PG13 and R rated ones), dancing(these activities are not law breaking activities to God) and love their bible believing fundie doctrine. Like me.
Now Dr. Young in your eyes equates bible believing literal six day creationists with fundie cultists, right? Then what does Dr. Young think of the person who has the biggest honorary scholarship named after him at Calvin college and seminary. You see the biggest scholarship fund at Calvin College and Seminary is named after Lewis Berkhof, who was a literal 6 day creationist bible believing Calvinist “fundie”. On page 139 of Lewis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, 1938 Eerdmans books, ISBN 0802838200, Lewis Berkhoff writes of Evolution
the doctrine of evolution is an embarrassment to theology and science
pg 139 Systematic theology by Lewis Berkhof.
So your man Dr. Young calls Lewis Berkhoff (his schools most honored scholar) a fundie cultist. Real nice aChristian.
AChristian posted:
” Clash, scientific evidence proves, beyond any REASONABLE doubt, that our earth has not been completely covered with water at any time in mankind's history, and certainly not just a few thousand years ago as fundamentalists maintain.”
Response: science to you is more authoritative than the bible.
Q: Is science with its changing doctrines (just like the WT) more correct than Gen 7:4, the bible which never changes.
Q: How do you explain the other scientist who say there is evidence of a world wide flood.
Here is a little mock dialog between Me=jr and aChristian =ac
Ac: Did you know science is more authoritative and reliable on the creation account than the bible.
Jr: No, you don’t say. By what authority?
Ac: Well, by the authority of man and his atheistic unbelieving presuppositions in science.
Jr: Is that so. Do you believe in the biblical account of the world wide flood in Gen 7:4
Ac: absolutely not! The bible is a bunch of crap when it comes to the accounts of the flood. Science is where it’s at. With out a shadow of a doubt Science has discredited the bible and proved a local flood, you, know just a bad storm that lasted a few days due to some rebellious way ward meteors.
Jr: Well how do you know?
Ac: Because Science tells me so
Jr: Wow, you don’t say. Ac?
Ac: Yes?
Jr: Since science is the ultimate authority? What do you do with the other scientist who have hard evidence that there was a world wide flood?
Ac: Shut the hell up those are apostate scientist! Do you want to be disfellowshiped?

Three books I recommend on creation and the bible.
Creation and Change by Douglas Kelly
http://www.gbibooks.com/pix.asp?im1=1857922832-F&im2=1857922832-B
And
Battle for the Beginning by John McArthur
http://www.gbibooks.com/pix.asp?im1=0849916259-F&im2=
And
Not a Chance by R.C. Sproul
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/080105852X/reader/1/102-1779833-7576113#reader-link
Also available
Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0877847339/reader/1/102-1779833-7576113#reader-link
Hugs and kisses,
jr
aChristian

Clash,
You wrote: I think we may have a failure to communicate. ... Maybe we mean two different things when we mean bible believing. Look I am going to give you a historic evangelical document that defines bible believing Inerrency if you believe all of it then everything is cool. Your cool and were are probably having a missunderstanding.
I read the statement. I agree with nearly all of it. However, there are a few things I would have worded a bit differently. For instance, section 12 said, "We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood." Those words imply that the Bible itself "teaches" that the flood covered the whole earth. I say it does not. I believe that the Bible itself only teaches that the land of Noah was completely flooded with water, covering the highest hills in his land and destroying all life in his land that was outside the ark. I have plainly stated my case for this understanding on page 2 of this thread. Because this understanding of the Genesis flood account does not conflict with either the original language of scripture or the facts of science, I believe this understanding is much more likely to be the correct one than the "fundamentalist" understanding of the Genesis flood account.
In this thread I have defended my understanding of the Genesis flood account against all critics. I have shown how it is not in conflict with either modern science or the text of scripture itself. I have challenged you to defend your belief that the flood of Noah's day was global. I gave you a link at which you can read scores of reasons why we know the flood could not have been global. I challenged you to answer all of the questions there listed. You ignored my challenge. Since you apparently cannot do so, the only conclusion I can come to is that the fundamentalists' "global flood" interpretation of Genesis must be wrong.
You wrote: One more thing, women are not to be in leadership in the bible believing church.
I disagree. I'll recommend a book to you. It is called "Who Said Women Can't Teach?" by Charles Trombley, published by Logos Books. In it he shows how the words written by the apostle Paul, which are understood by fundamentalists to say that women are not allowed to hold positions of authority in Christian Churches, did not actually reflect the apostle Paul's own beliefs. And how Paul was in those passages actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings. I have explained this on this forum before. See this thread, a few posts down from the top:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17102&site=3
You wrote: Look there is an event coming to town http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.asp?Event_ID=456
... Check it out unless your just as dishonest as the Governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
No, thanks. I've already checked out "Answers in Genesis." I know it well. It is an organization that promotes pseudo science and is often less than honest in their presentation of "evidence." Maybe they have honorable intentions. They are evidently trying to defend what they believe the Bible is saying any way they can. However, since the Bible does not say what they say that it says, God does not need their dishonest defense of him.
You wrote: Is science more authoritative than the Bible?
No, but it is more authoritative than some cultist kooks' mistaken interpretation of the Bible.
You wrote: Here is a little mock dialog between Me=jr and aChristian =ac .....
Ac: absolutely not! The bible is a bunch of crap when it comes to the accounts of the flood.
I did not appreciate your putting words like that in my mouth. I did not consider your parody to be funny. The kind of Christianity you espouse is a kind that will only succeed in driving away from Christ most educated people, most women and most people with the common sense God gave them. I want nothing to do with it. You and I are done talking, Clash.
hillary_step

Hello Clash,
Are you a crypto atheist that’s why you agree with and such close common ground with Hillary and her anti-biblical atheistic assertions?
Just to clear up some misconceptions in your post that alluded to myself.
I am not a woman, secondly, I am not an atheist, thirdly am I not anti-Biblical. I am however, a committed anti-fundamentalist. If you had read my post carefully before you reacted, you would note that my comments were not anti-Christian, but anti-fundamentalist as I see fundamentalists as the true enemies of the Bible. Please note what I actually wrote, not what you thought, or perhaps hoped that I wrote, with especial reference to the highlighted part. :
It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians are the greatest recruiters for the cause of atheism since the Russian Revolution. Their desire to create a ‘static’ theological environment for each eon that they happen to live in does Christianity a disservice. Perhaps the biggest error made by these people is their imagining that Christianity as a system of principle, which was all that Jesus taught in his sermons, should not evolve as a belief but should be dragged from era to era and its adherents forced to ignore reality while they try to establish a corner of the C1st in the C21st.
Fundamentalists have done the Bible and Christianity a disservice by attempting to strain its contemporary facets into a shape that they were never designed to take. It seems to me that much of what Jesus was trying to teach, was with a view to highlighting the dangers of the brutal fundamentalism of Judaism, which bears much resemblance to the equally brutal fundamentalist Christian ethic.
You suggested that we read a book written by Kelly. I have read this book and I might say that I found it fairly typical of the gifted amateurs who play this game by building castles on other peoples air. On a web-site Kelly was recently questioned about his views. I have taken the answers to two of these questions as I feel that they may speak for the pre-conceived motivation with which he and many other YEC approach this albeit difficult subject.
KH: Prof. Kelly, does your taking a stand on a literal Genesis put you in a minority camp among theologians?
DK: In regard to belief in 6-day creation, 24–hour days and a relatively young earth, yes. But I am glad to see that some — particularly younger — colleagues take the same stand. I think there is a shift in the direction of Creation in the way Genesis teaches, more than at any time in my professional lifetime.
Please note:
1) He is not a professional scientist, but a professional theologian.
2) He accepts that YEC theology is a minority belief among fellow professional theologians.
Similarly, what if someone said, ‘Convince me I’ve got to believe in six literal days’, how would you succinctly answer?
I would first talk about whether they were willing to accept what Scripture says, i.e.to submit to the authority of God’s Word.
Again note, that to his own admission a person is required to ‘submit to the authority of God’s Word’, before they can believe the YEC view of at least, the six creative days.
Submit to the authority of God’s Word, as presented by a minority group of theologians, who are not professional scientists……this is beginning to remind me of something very unhealthy.
I agree with aChristian, YEC has all the ingredients of a cult.
IslandWoman

Clash,
You are right, women should not teach for did not Jesus say that only HE was the teacher?
So I will relent to HIS words and not my own:
"Jesus said, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?' Supposing him to be the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will go and remove him'. Jesus said, 'Mary!' she knew him then and said to him in Hebrew, 'Rabbuni! - which means Master. Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and find the brothers, and tell them: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. So Mary of Magdala went and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had said these things to her."
What was the greatest news in all the world? Was it not the raising of the Christ? Did the Christ tell Peter or John to go and tell the disciples of his resurrection? No, he did not, though Peter and John had just been to the tomb also. He chose a lowly woman to deliver this greatest of all good news!
What was the other greatest news in all the world? The coming birth of the Messiah. Again who was the first to be told?, a woman.
This of course had nothing to do with these women being greater, to the contrary they were quite lowly. But that was the point.
"It was to shame the wise that God chose what is foolish by human reckoning, and to shame what is strong that he chose what is weak by human reckoning; those whom the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen."
The great pity is that men like yourself while claiming great knowledge are spiritually blind. It's love Jesus taught, but for many religious men "rulership" feels good, too good to let go of even for the Christ! (Rulership of course requires rules and laws as you have nicely enumerated for us in your previous post!)
The greatest "teachings" have already been taught, God does not need more teachers he needs more people to deliver the sayings and instructions of Jesus as HE purposed them to be understood!
IW
D wiltshire

IW,
You got my vote!
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
aChristian

IW,
Concerning our friend Clash, you wrote: The great pity is that men like yourself while claiming great knowledge are spiritually blind.
Uh, you wouldn't be the same IW who jumped all over me for calling Clash a bad speller, would you? : )
IslandWoman

aChristian,
No, I am not!
Actually, Jesus confronted the religious leaders of his day on that very point, their blindness. He never though poked fun at those little stumblings which are common to all mankind.
Your response to my criticism was calm and humble, one that Jesus would have approved of. I respected you as a result.
IW

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

Share this