After 2000 years since JC was executed ,why have we heard not a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?

by smiddy 268 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

tec

...just the ones you want to remember.

Not at all.
Some people learn just by listening... and they don't forget what they have learned. Not everything has to be written down in order to be remembered. Or learned, taught, etc. There is the spoken word.

I am having trouble understanding your confusion. It's quite simple, really. The Word in John 1:1 is the source of the word mentioned in Hebrews 4:12. Just as the Word was the source of David's words in Psalms. The Word is the source of scripture.
Yes, I am following you up to this point. What I am asking you to do is to show me where in the book of Hebrews are you led to believe that Hebrews 4:12 is referring to scripture, over the Word (the source, as you are speaking of here, that SPEAKS)
The writer of Hebrews knew this and was describing the final result, which is scripture.
The final result of the Word of God is not scripture. The final result of the Word of God is LIFE, for those who put their faith in Him. Can you provide something to back your statement here please?
In what way, though?

He heard, and spoke as the Spirit carried him along.
"The Spirit" IS a name. Regardless, there is actually only ONE divine name, the Highest Name which was given to Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:8-11).

No, it is not a name. It describes a person; it describes a kind of being (spirit being); it also describes the life that flows from God, through Christ, to whomever Christ gives that spirit/life TO. But "Spirit" is not a name.
Jaheshua is a name. Jahveh is a name. Paul, Peter, John, Mary, etc, etc... are names.
Yes, Yahweh = Christ = The Spirit all are coequal, coeternal and separate persons.

I am not sure if you are trying to describe the trinity at all here... but even the trinity does not state that Jahveh (Yahweh) IS Christ or that Christ IS the Holy Spirit. That would be the opposite of separate persons... and didn't you just try to tell me that Christ was not the Spirit? Is that not a contradiction?
But Paul said the Lord is the Spirit (and if you check the context, he is speaking about Christ, when he says Lord).
Exactly, the Spirit will LEAD you to truth as wind does a ship at sea. It directs you to safety.

The Spirit certainly can do that... and more. For instance, the verses that speak to the Spirit TEACHING specifically:
For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what to say. Luke 12:12
John 16:12,13
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Sprit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
The Spirit taught Peter about the gentiles, in his vision. That spirit was Christ. The Spirit (Christ again) directly taught Paul.
Even if his words don't make sense from a human standpoint? ;)

How so?
If one does not understand, one can ask, and put faith in Him to help them understand or that His word ARE the the words of life.
Or one could be like the many disciples who did not understand what Christ meant when HE said that in order to have life, one must eat his flesh and drink his blood... and so those disciples left Him.
Peace,
tammy
latinthunder

Some people learn just by listening... and they don't forget what they have learned. Not everything has to be written down in order to be remembered. Or learned, taught, etc. There is the spoken word.
Words are meant to be written down. An oral language is limited and falls away in time. The only way to sustain words through history is to write them down. My statement was meant as a heuristic and you took it quite literally. Once words are written down you have to protect them or else they will be changed (destroyed) over time. This is very difficult, but all is possible with God.
Yes, I am following you up to this point. What I am asking you to do is to show me where in the book of Hebrews are you led to believe that Hebrews 4:12 is referring to scripture, over the Word (the source, as you are speaking of here, that SPEAKS)
I did, I pointed you to the Greek word "logos." The writer was pointing out that even though scripture appears inanimate as ink and parchment, it's actually full of life. He is saying that scriptures are living breathing documents (2 Tim 3:16).
Can you provide something to back your statement here please?
The writer of Hebrews 4:7 claims that David's words were sometimes considered God's words as in the case of Psalms. Meaning the process of scripture starts and ends with a pen. That's the power of words, you can write them down and refer back and they come by way of inspiration.
No, it is not a name.
Yes it is, just as father and son are proper names in the right context. Why do you think the Spirit is represented by 7 eyes on a lamb in Revelation?
I am not sure if you are trying to describe the trinity at all here... but even the trinity does not state that Jahveh (Yahweh) IS Christ or that Christ IS the Holy Spirit. That would be the opposite of separate persons... and didn't you just try to tell me that Christ was not the Spirit? Is that not a contradiction?
Being equal with something else doesn't make you exactly the same. For instance I can be among two other humans and be considered equal to them. Even though our ages, genders and experiences differ, we are still equal in that we are all humans. We share the same nature and are given equal rights associated with that nature. The same is with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three share the same divine nature, but exist as three separate persons.
But Paul said the Lord is the Spirit
Yes, he was refering to equality of nature, both the Spirit and the Lord are God just as you and I are human.
and didn't you just try to tell me that Christ was not the Spirit? Is that not a contradiction?
The Lord is not the Spirit in the way that you claim, that they are the same person. They are separate persons who share the same nature. One Being, Three Persons.
tec

Words are meant to be written down. An oral language is limited and falls away in time. The only way to sustain words through history is to write them down. My statement was meant as a heuristic and you took it quite literally. Once words are written down you have to protect them or else they will be changed (destroyed) over time. This is very difficult, but all is possible with God.

The SPIRIT is not limited.
And words are not always mean to be written down. Revelation was meant to be written down. "Write, therefore, what you have seen."
And once words are written down, they can be changed, mistranslated, etc (scribal errors/lies due to misunderstanding, etc)

I did, I pointed you to the Greek word "logos." The writer was pointing out that even though scripture appears inanimate as ink and parchment, it's actually full of life. He is saying that scriptures are living breathing documents (2 Tim 3:16).
I asked you what in the book of Hebrews leads you to that.
Logos... the Word of God... is Christ.
So what in this instance, would have you believe that logos refers to scripture. What in this book leads you to that?
Can you not provide what I am asking/
The scriptures are not living breathing documents (and that verse in Timothy does not state this). Christ is the living, breathing word. Not metaphorically. Truly. Alive, living, breathing, speaking, teaching, animate, THE life. Do you deny any of this about Him?
Meaning the process of scripture starts and ends with a pen.

Well, the process of scripture actually starts with HEARING the Spirit.
Then it is written. But we weren't talking solely about scripture, because I agree that the Word of God is the source of scripture (but not all that is written is scripture, even in the bible)... but we were talking about the Word of God. The Truth, the Image of God: All being Christ.
We are not given anyone or anything to look at other than Christ, to see and know God.
Yes it is, just as father and son are proper names in the right context. Why do you think the Spirit is represented by 7 eyes on a lamb in Revelation?

Father and Son are titles, roles. Not names. That is why they each HAVE a name, as well as roles, as well as titles. Same as God is a title, and not a name.
The lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, representing the seven spirits sent out into all the earth.
I'm not sure what you are asking. I am not denying the Spirit. Not as Christ... the Spirit of Truth; nor the spirit (life) that flows from the Father, through the Son.
Remember that in Revelation, He refers to the seven churches also... but there is only One church: the Body of Christ.
Being equal with something else doesn't make you exactly the same. For instance I can be among two other humans and be considered equal to them. Even though our ages, genders and experiences differ, we are still equal in that we are all humans. We share the same nature and are given equal rights associated with that nature. The same is with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three share the same divine nature, but exist as three separate persons.

I think you have moved past the point. Christ is the Spirit... as Paul said. (the Lord is the Spirit). You said, yes, at first... in making them interchangeable. (yahweh = christ = the holy spirit) But then you state, no, they are not the same.. they are just equal. Even if that were true (and Christ states otherwise), what does that have to do with Paul saying that the Lord IS the Spirit? He does not state equal, or of the same nature, he states the Lord IS the Spirit... which would be like saying the Son IS the Father, and I am assuming you would not agree to that.
Yes, he was refering to equality of nature, both the Spirit and the Lord are God just as you and I are human.

That is not what Paul said. See above.
I am not, however, getting involved in a trinity debate.
You did not respond to the verses that state that the Spirit TEACHES, directly. That is the more to the point of the discussion that we are having, isn't it?
Peace,
tammy
adamah

Words are meant to be written down. An oral language is limited and falls away in time.
So does written language, since words are symbols; whether written or spoken, they evolve.
Think of the phrase "big brother": it literally means an old male sibling, and carries no implications for the relative's intent. A non-profit organization that arranges for unrelated male volunteers to serve as mentors for young boys without role models co-opted the name in 1900, hence a positive connotation. In the wake of George Orwell's novel '1984', the phrase's meaning carries a more-negative menacing connotation, referring to government intrusion into the personal lives of obviously unrelated citizens.
That's why claiming to KNOW the meaning of any word appearing in an ancient document, or used by someone speaking it is, fraught with peril and carries uncertainty, since we really cannot be certain of its intended meaning. Heck, people misuse words ALL THE TIME, not knowing what they actually mean.
(I like the word 'cleave', which carries completely contradictory meanings, eg meat cleaver implies CUTTING and SEPARATING, wheras it also can imply two objects MELDING into one, eg marriage.)
Here's an interesting article on nephilim, which illustrates the foolishness of thinking you've nailed down an exact meaning of a word describing imaginary beings as conceived 2,500 yrs ago: the best you can do is try to understand how the authors IMAGINED them at a CERTAIN TIME, trying to insert yourself into their mind-set, while remembering that ALL conceptions within the culture evolve with time, and are subject to different interpretations:
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nephilim.pdf
Adam
latinthunder

And words are not always mean to be written down.
Christ was strongly against secrecy. Words that are specifically meant NOT to be written down would be, by definition, secret. What good is a secret word? Words were meant to be written down. Truth is not hidden.
And once words are written down, they can be changed, mistranslated, etc (scribal errors/lies due to misunderstanding, etc)
Yes, they can be changed, which is precisely why the writer of Hebrews tells us that the word of God is alive. He is showing us the difference between true scripture and false, which I have given the details of in a previous post. In short, scripture that has not been tampered with will "go to the bones" while falsified scripture will not provide that effect. It's as simple as seeing night from day. The New World Translation, for instance, is nothing but falsified scripture, or darkness. How do we determine that? By observing the fruits of the ones who follow it.
Can you not provide what I am asking/
I did provide what you asked, but you are not accepting it, and you still have not answered my first question, "what is the difference between the use of the word logos at John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12 ?" Every single translation of John 1:1 has a capital "W" when rendering the word "logos." The word "logos" doesn't mean Christ by default, it actually means "a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech" by default. Our posts for example would fit under the term "logos." However, when you take a look at the translations of Hebrews 4:12 you see the vast majority rendering a lower case "w." This is because the scholars understood that what was being referenced was the written word, which was originated by The Word. They are saying that the written word of God is alive because it's empowered by The Word of God. There is a clear difference in the term being used in John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12.
Well, the process of scripture actually starts with HEARING the Spirit.
What does hearing the Spirit sound like? What does wind sound like? What does water taste like?
Then it is written. But we weren't talking solely about scripture, because I agree that the Word of God is the source of scripture (but not all that is written is scripture, even in the bible)... but we were talking about the Word of God. The Truth, the Image of God: All being Christ.
All 66 books in the RCC cannon are fully scripture. I don't see how you can say that a certain part of the book is scripture and a certain part is not. The book is either usable as scripture or it's not. There is no inbetween as you seem to be implying.
We are not given anyone or anything to look at other than Christ, to see and know God.
Yes, the Word as the orginator of the written word, or scripture.
Father and Son are titles, roles. Not names. That is why they each HAVE a name, as well as roles, as well as titles. Same as God is a title, and not a name.
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name". The Father's name is The Father. He has many names actually, but the best name for Him is the Father. The Holy Spirit's name is the Holy Spirit and the interesting thing about that is there are no other names given for the Holy Spirit (except for titles such as "Advocate, "Comforter" but no names such as Jesus, Yahweh/etc). The Holy Spirit is unique in that respect and it's because it doesn't want any credit, never has and never will. However, it needs to have a designation and that's the Spirit/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, not the Word of God, not Yehoshua, not Immanuel , not Christ. It's astounding for me to see you deny the Holy Spirit's existence simply because you believe it lacks a name.
I am not denying the Spirit.
Saying that the Spirit and Christ are the same person IS denying the Spirit. It's saying that the Spirit, the third Element of the Trinity, doesn't exist and never did. You are subtracting God (3-1) and therefore denying him his own existential nature. It's no small matter.
what does that have to do with Paul saying that the Lord IS the Spirit?
Have you looked up the Greek word for "IS"? It means " I exist, I am " which would tie in with my previous posts. It is not saying that he is the same person as the Spirit, but is saying that the Spirit exists in the same way as The Lord Christ. It's assigning the Spirit it's proper Eternal status as compared to the Word who was there in the beginning and WAS God. The Word IS God, and the Spirit IS the Word and they all existed in the beginning and created the heavens and the earth (Elohim). The Spirit that hovered over the waters in Genesis 1:2 was not the person of Christ, it was the person of the Spirit.
I am not, however, getting involved in a trinity debate.
The question asked in this OP is answered by Trinity theology quite eloquently. The Spirit is with us while we await the return of the King who gives us strenth to live in this barbarous world. The Spirit is NOT the King, the King of Kings is the King.
tec

Words that are specifically meant NOT to be written down would be, by definition, secret.
Or maybe they are meant to be spoken and heard. It doesn't have to be as black and white as you are making it. In either case, I did not say specifically meant NOT to be written down... they just don't HAVE to be written down.
Yes, they can be changed, which is precisely why the writer of Hebrews tells us that the word of God is alive. He is showing us the difference between true scripture and false, which I have given the details of in a previous post. In short, scripture that has not been tampered with will "go to the bones" while falsified scripture will not provide that effect. It's as simple as seeing night from day. The New World Translation, for instance, is nothing but falsified scripture, or darkness. How do we determine that? By observing the fruits of the ones who follow it.
Using your example on the wts... then we would also know that the 'RCC canon' is false, by observing THEIR fruits. Though they have changed a great deal now as society has changed, and as they have been held more accountable, but we can look at their history, and know that the fruits they were producing (torture, executions, persecution, slavery, etc, etc) were of darkness as well.
Despite any and all of this though, one can know what is TRUE... by looking at THE Truth: Christ. Listening to HIM... and HE can confirm for us what is true or not... and yes, that truth CAN be 'felt in the bones', even if He is confirming something written.
I asked you this question, but you did not answer it:
The scriptures are not living breathing documents (and that verse in Timothy does not state this). Christ is the living, breathing word. Not metaphorically. Truly. Alive, living, breathing, speaking, teaching, animate, THE life. Do you deny any of this about Him?
I did provide what you asked, but you are not accepting it, and you still have not answered my first question, "what is the difference between the use of the word logos at John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12 ?" Every single translation of John 1:1 has a capital "W" when rendering the word "logos." The word "logos" doesn't mean Christ by default, it actually means "a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech" by default. Our posts for example would fit under the term "logos." However, when you take a look at the translations of Hebrews 4:12 you see the vast majority rendering a lower case "w." This is because the scholars understood that what was being referenced was the written word, which was originated by The Word. They are saying that the written word of God is alive because it's empowered by The Word of God. There is a clear difference in the term being used in John 1:1 and Hebrews 4:12.
The key part of your post here is the bolded part. The scholars are saying this... the scholars placed a big W in one place, and a small w, in another place. That means nothing except to tell us that the scholars believed this, and so wrote according to what they believed. (see Adamah's post above on how meanings of words can change over time to help, because that is a good point)
That is why I asked why YOU believe the author of Hebrews is speaking of 'word'... rather than... 'Word'. What, other than the placement of a small w over a capital w?
All 66 books in the RCC cannon are fully scripture. I don't see how you can say that a certain part of the book is scripture and a certain part is not. The book is either usable as scripture or it's not. There is no inbetween as you seem to be implying.
Because it is not one book. It was turned into one book... but the bible is many books, and letters; prophets, law, history, witness accounts, revelation, poetry, etc, etc. Many books - as you said yourself.
Scripture is that which is written down, received from the Spirit, received from God. Originating with the Word, as you have also said. So from that we can know that Luke was not inspired, as an example. He did not receive the words he wrote down. Luke investigated all things, asked witnesses, and compiled an orderly report for the one he was writing to/for.
It is all still usable, and is of value, of course. Just as any witness account to Christ today is valuable, regardless of whether or not it is scripture. It all speaks and points to Christ and to God, giving witness to them.
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name". The Father's name is The Father. He has many names actually, but the best name for Him is the Father. The Holy Spirit's name is the Holy Spirit and the interesting thing about that is there are no other names given for the Holy Spirit (except for titles such as "Advocate, "Comforter" but no names such as Jesus, Yahweh/etc). The Holy Spirit is unique in that respect and it's because it doesn't want any credit, never has and never will. However, it needs to have a designation and that's the Spirit/Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, not the Word of God, not Yehoshua, not Immanuel, not Christ. It's astounding for me to see you deny the Holy Spirit's existence simply because you believe it lacks a name.
One can say, Father, hallowed be your name... without meaning that it is "Father" that you want to be hallowed, but rather the name of your father.
I do not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit at all. Not for any reason.
Saying that the Spirit and Christ are the same person IS denying the Spirit. It's saying that the Spirit, the third Element of the Trinity, doesn't exist and never did. You are subtracting God (3-1) and therefore denying him his own existential nature. It's no small matter.
I'm not denying God anything. I am just denying the trinity.
From your point of view, that means the same thing... from mine, it is just denial of a man-made doctrine. I don't expect that we will agree on this, and it might well be moot... as long as you do not deny the things stated about Christ, or put something BEFORE Christ.
But if you look to Christ first and foremost, over anything and anyone, then despite disagreements... it may well simly be a matter of 'he who is not against you is for you.'
Have you looked up the Greek word for "IS"? It means "I exist, I am" which would tie in with my previous posts. It is not saying that he is the same person as the Spirit, but is saying that the Spirit exists in the same way as The Lord Christ. It's assigning the Spirit it's proper Eternal status as compared to the Word who was there in the beginning and WAS God. The Word IS God, and the Spirit IS the Word and they all existed in the beginning and created the heavens and the earth (Elohim). The Spirit that hovered over the waters in Genesis 1:2 was not the person of Christ, it was the person of the Spirit.
Well, that was the Spirit of God. God, Himself... as God is spirit, just as Christ is spirit. (spirit as a nature, as opposed to THE Spirit of Truth... which is really just another way of saying the Spirit of Christ, since Christ is the Truth) Your understanding would imply that the Spirit (the third person in your trinity) was in existence before Christ? Because when God said, "Let there be LIGHT"... that LIGHT is Christ. (I am the Light of the world) Life. Separating Light (life/Christ) from the darkness. Peace, tammy
JWB

In answer to the initial question, here is my answer:
Probably because if you were 'Almighty God' you would think of a far better way to transmit your message to people that a book written in a specific language. Your vastly superior wisdom would make you put your message in such a way that would completely bypass the problems associated with the written word (mistranslations, misinterpretations, etc). It would be far more effective to put it INSIDE every human being. I think this is what conscience is. There is no need for all sorts of written laws to enable people to live peacefully, just the inner voice that tells you, "No I'd better not do that because I wouldn't want that done to me!"
tec

Good answer, JWB!
Probably because if you were 'Almighty God' you would think of a far better way to transmit your message to people that a book written in a specific language.
Absolutely. Though some things are directed to be written down, it is because some people need to SEE. Just like the law is meant to be 'written on hearts' (unseen, stemming from love), but the Israelites' hearts were too hard, and so they needed the law to be written on stone tablets (and later scrolls, etc)
Your vastly superior wisdom would make you put your message in such a way that would completely bypass the problems associated with the written word (mistranslations, misinterpretations, etc). It would be far more effective to put it INSIDE every human being.
Yes. Such as from spirit to spirit. Within. Unseen.
I think this is what conscience is. There is no need for all sorts of written laws to enable people to live peacefully, just the inner voice that tells you, "No I'd better not do that because I wouldn't want that done to me!"
People should not need written laws to live according to the law and in peace, that is true. That inner voice does teach and guide us... sometimes keeping us from doing wrong; sometimes keeping us FROM harm. If we heed Him.
I would like to offer the understanding given to me on consience though, for your consideration.
Rathe than being that voice... our conscience is what 'condemns' (causes you to feel bad, or shame, etc) us when we do not heed that voice.
For example:
Every year at the memorial, you WANT to partake. You have heard the call to partake; you have heard it within you. Maybe not in words just yet; perhaps that would frighten you; but you hear that call, and you know every year that you SHOULD say 'yes', rather than 'no', to Christ. Yet your fear of men causes you to pass the emblems by.... and every year you feel sick about saying 'no.'
You heard the voice... but did not heed it... and your conscience bore witness to that, in the shame/sadness/sickness that you feel.
Another example, more secular:
Say a mom does not believe that her son is genuinely sick, but is faking it so as not to go to school, so he can stay home and play video games. She becomes annoyed with him, threatening to take away all of his video games for the weekend if he does not go to school. She hears... do not speak harshly with him...
Now if she heeds the voice... well, she corrects her actions.
If she does not heed the voice... and learns that her child IS sick... then her conscience bears witness against her, and then comes the shame both in doing wrong and in not having listened to that voice.
Peace to you!!
tammy
latinthunder

Or maybe they are meant to be spoken and heard. It doesn't have to be as black and white as you are making it. In either case, I did not say specifically meant NOT to be written down... they just don't HAVE to be written down.
Not only must words be written down, they also must be protected. How do you believe that protection is attained?
Using your example on the wts... then we would also know that the 'RCC canon' is false, by observing THEIR fruits. Though they have changed a great deal now as society has changed, and as they have been held more accountable, but we can look at their history, and know that the fruits they were producing (torture, executions, persecution, slavery, etc, etc) were of darkness as well.
There is nothing in the 66 book cannon that condones any evil the RCC committed, they went far beyond what was written. They were abandoning their own principles, as spelled out by scripture, by committing the evil deeds in the first place. That's strong evidence that their cannon IS scripture because when you follow it correctly, your life improves and when you follow it incorrectly, you fall into sin. I am compelled to agree with Steven Fry and wish the best for the Catholic Church rather than judge it's people as a whole. Reformation of the RCC can bring forth a powerful force of good in the world and they are making those changes. The Watchtower, on the other hand, would rather turn up the heat on their young than reform, it's very painful to watch. The RCC fruit is NOT as the Watchtower, there's no good way to be a Jehovah's Witness. The NWT and it's vast array of confusing commentaries is NOT on the same level as the RCC Cannon. It's a shameful fraud and a side by side comparison shows this as clear as day. When the Jehovah's Witnesses start opening hospitals and orphanages we can start to think about drawing a comparison. The Watchtower are Catholic wannabes.
The key part of your post here is the bolded part. The scholars are saying this...That is why I asked why YOU believe the author of Hebrews is speaking of 'word'... rather than... 'Word'. What, other than the placement of a small w over a capital w?
Yes, the "scholars" who just so happened to vehemently disagree with each other to the point of execution and exile. Yet, even through all of that horror, they managed to agree to put a lower case w for Hebrews 4:12 and an upper for John 1:1. That is corroboration of evidence which is scientific. Do you deny the scientific process of truth?
Because it is not one book. It was turned into one book... but the bible is many books, and letters; prophets, law, history, witness accounts, revelation, poetry, etc, etc. Many books - as you said yourself.
The question really is does the book work? What is the book's purpose? The answer is in Hebrews 4:12, it's designing to cut to the bones and judge the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. So, if it doesn't do that, it's NOT scripture. All 66 books of the RCC cannon meet the criteria and billions of people testify to that. The NWT, and it's commentarires, on the other hand, is fraudulent and designed to subvert the truth of the 66 book cannon (cause destruction). That RCC cannon took an incredible amount of work in order to create and the Watchtower spits on it.
I'm not denying God anything. I am just denying the trinity.
The Trinity is a concept that can only be discovered through very vigorous study. In the past the resources needed to accomplish the study were well beyond the common man. With the advent of the internet, that has changed. I would suggest doing more research and with an open mind.
Your understanding would imply that the Spirit (the third person in your trinity) was in existence before Christ?
No, they are coequal and coeternal, always the same, never changing. At least from our perspective.
Because when God said, "Let there be LIGHT"... that LIGHT is Christ. (I am the Light of the world) Life. Separating Light (life/Christ) from the darkness.
You are saying that in Genesis 1:1 there was no light even though the heavens and the earth were both CREATED. Heavens have stars and stars are LIGHT, what you say is not making sense to me. Christ was sent by the Father into a world of darkness, that's what he said he was he "light of the world."
JWB

tammy, it seems we have a similar view, and thanks for your insight!

I would like to add that Christianity is not the only path that can lead to peaceful relations with others. Confucius, whose life overlapped the Babylonian captivity, also had much wisdom to offer in the matter of getting on with others. I am of the understanding that he also had a similar saying to the effect that one should not do to others what one would not want done to oneself. One problem with the written word in the form of ancient 'sacred' texts is that we cannot know for sure who wrote them, and more to the point if they really were of divine origin - even today there are those who claim to be in contact with the heavenly realm. To blindly follow a supposed 'sacred' written word can lead us into ignoring our inate conscience. This is why all sorts of horrendous acts have been committed in the name of religion. To follow the law written within us is, in my view, the best way. To give one example, if a religious text condoned the killing of people of a different religion, listening to the inner law (conscience) and giving it priority would prevent one from acting in a criminal manner.

After 2000 years since JC was executed ,why have we heard not a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?

Share this