Summations Only

Yes and no. Its never wise to limit our learning to something already written. We can expand on it through discussion...or we can go write our own book...which would you do?Is the evidence we seek evidence for absolute (or complete) truth or is this a necessity?

I'm quite sure that God already knew why. Satan was merely acting out the choice that he had made...to oppose God. God never asked questions to find out the answer. God asked us questions so that we would reflect on our decisions and choices and see ourselves in a mirror.

And yet how would Jesus avoid fulfilling the scriptures? Would he purposefully never ride on a donkey?(at least not into Jerusalem with palm leaves)Would He purposefully avoid saying some of the things He said...just so nobody would confuse Him with prophecy. Would He say to everyone, "Hey I'm just a normal guy like you. My Father is your Father..."?

This brings up the question as to whether Jesus knew everything that the Father knew.

This bothers me. I suppose that in one context "evidence" is the only tool that can verify, but in matters of Faith/Belief I would argue that much of what *some* believers rely on in order to formulate their beliefs is subjective.You use logic, reason, and reality. I use these also, but I never look at the Bible simply as having a "God character" and a "Jesus character." The central tenet of my club is the belief that Jesus is living. Unlike some historical character brought back to life, Jesus is God.Now, you may have a point in seeing Him as human while on earth, so I suppose I cannot support an argument that He had divine foreknowledge at that time.

But why must we limit our belief to what is written? And what is so wrong about worshiping GOD as we imagine Him(and His Son) over what is limited to the books? I mean...how can you even begin to conceptualize GOD the Creator of all seen and unseen with a God that humans need to correct at time? Dont you see the disconnect?GOD may well be unknowable, but Jesus is no longer human and the ants have a spokesman to the Father.

My ideas and beliefs about GOD and Jesus are hardly unique. Moreover, just because something is written down makes it no less (or more) liable to be made up than is a verbal statement. So again I ask why anyone should take your ideas any more seriously than mine?(Specifically the idea that GOD, Creator of all seen and unseen being at one definition unknowable and on another definition schooled by humans.) Additionally you make the point that Jesus is no wiser than any other human of his era and that in fact we likely are wiser than him now....Perhaps this belongs in Faith/Belief so I will start a new topic if you would like.

I may have mentioned before that it is irrelevant how we can know a GOD (or GOD) but that the important thing is that He first knew us.I realize what the Bible stories say, but I ask you to use logic, reason, and reality. What sense does it make for the Creator of all seen and unseen to require humans to correct Him? I can agree that the God character was not very nice in the OT, and my usual rationalization is that in this case it was human interpretation of that character and/or it was humans who carried out the immorality which they wrote that the God character had demanded. Lets discuss Jesus, however---as written. Apart from your example of a temper tantrum in the temple and/or allowing lots of money to be spent on an alabaster jar of anointing ointment, how have we as a species progressed to being any more moral than Jesus was? Examples would help.

The idea that God exists and cares about us is arguably important. It is arguably unimportant if there is a Creator of all seen and unseen who cant be bothered to give you the time of day.If we are unimportant to Him, we are unimportant period. It all becomes survival. Which is why there are wars, by the way.

Of course. God cares enough to be the God of everyone. God is no respecter of persons. Of course. The war is our problem...not His. That being said, I would imagine that God cares about the suffering on both sides. Entirely possible and likely. I am important to Him. So are you. So are we all. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I've no idea. Is an oak tree more important to God than a housefly? Humans would assume so. The oak tree is certainly more important to us... It is a discussion and a debate between those of us who believe that God desires to relate to humans and speaks to us through the books versus the Apostle to the atheists who insists that GOD is unknowable and Jesus was just another human with a valuable message! I could argue that the god you create is your own ego. You tell us that we are charged...by whom? (By ourselves,of course) It is all up to us. I say that in communion with God it is all up to us. (And the real GOD, by the way...not one made up in our heads.)

These are valid questions. I will agree that the content is more important than the source, except to say I believe that if the source comes from a vain imagination attempting to redact the original intent of the text or whether the source is God in communion with the writers is arguably important. Again, as you say, the evidence is the content.And I will concede the point that we cannot know whether the words were inspired by God or not. That is an individual decision and belief. Nonsense. I understand what you are saying in historical context, but when I go to the store to buy one, I am buying a Bible...not a bunch of human interpretation and ulterior motive. Quit misdirecting the audience. Besides...we are discussing the content...whether revised, edited, or divinely inspired. I believe that the Bible was written by men, and was inspired by GOD...not through the vain imaginations of men. You are of course free to present a counterpoint. Point taken, and I disagree. The only God that matters is the one we have conceptualized in our minds and hearts. You are of course free to compare different writings and assume different gods, but the evidence you present is irrelevant. The only God we are interested in is the one YOU present. I challenged that God as being egotistical. You are free to ignore or even laugh at such a claim, but for now I agree with you---lets focus on the content of what is written. I would argue that our beliefs reflect the impact of the stories. The book essentially is about mans relationship with man, and mans attempts at relationship to God. This isnt all about evidence--unless you allow our opinions to be part of the record. Reason being that anything you or I write today is arguably as important as what was written---by other humans---in different cultures and times---back then.Why? Because we now live in this culture and this time and the interpretation of the stories and of the topic are true whether God said it or whether we say it and believe it.Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

Point taken. OK lets ignore the OT for a moment and focus on the New Testament. Would you agree that there is only one God consistently presented in Matthew-Revelation? If you see more than one, point it out. I of course will cooperate by reading what is written rather than simply arguing my own beliefs.

We will need scripture to support your point. Does Jesus speak of more than one "God character"? Again...scripture would help.

All that I see here is jars interpretation of the Bible.Are you incapable of supporting your view with scripture so that we can question it, or are you simply assuming we are going to take your opinion of what scripture means as the truth?Besides...some of the viewers may not have read the Bible and would appreciate a scriptural discussion in this thread.