What is meant by ...

[Musicman1228]

Actually Doug, if you are going to do Zen meditation you should probably use the correct chant 'Om mani padme hum'.

[karl]

Actually Doug, if you are going to do Zen meditation you should probably use the correct chant 'Om mani padme hum'.

What about "Ob ama padme wallet?"

[Dr. Rich]

Does anyone have any argument with John 14:26 and 17:20? If not, isn't this enough the real test on truth?

[Guest]

Does anyone have any argument with John 14:26 and 17:20? If not, isn't this enough the real test on truth?

You crack me up Rich. As many times as I have pointed out to you that neither one of these texts is a test, you still continue to call them such. One of them is a prayer, and one is a promise of the Holy Spirit. How can that be a test?

That would be like me saying something like: I'm gonna test you Rich. I'm going to come over there and paint your house for you. How is that a test? LOL

[doug yowell]

Actually Doug, if you are going to do Zen meditation you should probably use the correct chant 'Om mani padme hum'.

Thanks MM. They never taught me that one in Jesuit school.

[Guest]

It's kinda strange that MM knows that stuff. I can't really say I'm surprised though.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Actually Doug, if you are going to do Zen meditation you should probably use the correct chant 'Om mani padme hum'.

What about "Ob ama padme wallet?"

Stop it,Karl! I'm trying to CONTROL my emotions!!

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Does anyone have any argument with John 14:26 and 17:20? If not, isn't this enough the real test on truth?

You crack me up Rich. As many times as I have pointed out to you that neither one of these texts is a test, you still continue to call them such. One of them is a prayer, and one is a promise of the Holy Spirit. How can that be a test?

That would be like me saying something like: I'm gonna test you Rich. I'm going to come over there and paint your house for you. How is that a test? LOL

Actually, I like that test, Richard. Would you mind trying it on my house? I'll figure out the "how is that a test" part once you've finished.

[doug yowell]

Does anyone have any argument with John 14:26 and 17:20? If not, isn't this enough the real test on truth?

No.(and) No.

[Guest]

Actually, I like that test, Richard. Would you mind trying it on my house? I'll figure out the "how is that a test" part once you've finished.

I guess that means you passed the test Doug.

[Dr. Rich]

So, let me get this straight--you do not believe that it was important for the Holy Spirit to cause the disciples to remember everything Jesus said in order for them to write it down correctly so that you and I could read what they wrote and believe that it was true? Hmmm?

[doug yowell]

So, let me get this straight--you do not believe that it was important for the Holy Spirit to cause the disciples to remember everything Jesus said in order for them to write it down correctly so that you and I could read what they wrote and believe that it was true? Hmmm?

Hmmmm.That's strange. I don't remember saying that!!Let me check my post again. Hold on. Nope,couldn't find it.Actually I think I believe the opposite of what you may have erroneously thought I may have believed leading me to believe that you were in error to believe that I believed this error.

[Guest]

Indubidently. If I know Rich, he was in error when he got out of bed this morning. But cut him some slack, I honestly don't think he can help it.

[doug yowell]

Indubidently. If I know Rich, he was in error when he got out of bed this morning. But cut him some slack, I honestly don't think he can help it.

I think you're being a little hard on Rich, Rich(ard). After all, some mornings I can't help getting out of bed either.

[Guest]

Yeah, me too.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

So, let me get this straight--you do not believe that it was important for the Holy Spirit to cause the disciples to remember everything Jesus said in order for them to write it down correctly so that you and I could read what they wrote and believe that it was true? Hmmm?

Hmmmm.That's strange. I don't remember saying that!!Let me check my post again. Hold on. Nope,couldn't find it.Actually I think I believe the opposite of what you may have erroneously thought I may have believed leading me to believe that you were in error to believe that I believed this error.

Nike is coming out with a new shoe for jumping to conclusions - Air Roneous.

[Twilight]

Mark did not know or meet Jesus, but he did know and write for Peter, and Peter did know Jesus in a very special way.

Paul and his protege Luke are exactly the same as Mark, except Mark became a disciple of Jesus Christ through the words of Peter. This maintains the 'chain of evidence' necessary to maintain information continuity.

Most Christians use the Bible as their standard for truth, thinking that this position is sanctioned directly by God Himself. There is no proof that God ever did this. I believe that we do need a verifiable standard for truth, and Jesus Christ gave us that standard-His words. For me this does not mean another fallible human beings version of what Jesus said, this means His own words as recorded by His eye and ear witnesses that were actually with Him during His earthly ministry.

Now this is a real head scratcher for me,MM.Mark did not know Jesus but he did write for Peter( where is the Biblical evidence for this claim?)and that's OK because Peter actually knew Jesus.Luke did not know Jesus but wrote for others who actually knew Jesus(Luke 1:1-4), maintaining the "chain of evidence" but that's not OK because...??? But you're good with trusting Mark even though he is another fallable human being (was he?)who was just as capable of his own version of Peter's version as the next guy. And since I (and Richard,I think?? Well,maybe olger too)have never actually heard God's voice,we're sorta resigned to having to believe in the written Word. And we think that when Jesus quoted Moses in Deut.8:3 He (God) was sanctioning man's need to use the Bible as their standard of truth."And the Scripture cannot be broken".

Hey Doug :-)

When you quotes someone, you can select the text you are quoting and use the " box which is on the same row as the bold and italic function.

Mark :-)

[Dr. Rich]

And just what wrong conclusions have I presented here? (if any) I find it very sad for you guys to be making fun of a very serious issue. But then it appears none of you know a twit about the problem with hearsay evidence.

And doug, for the record, just what do you believe on this issue? And why? Please present your foundation for your belief? And also for the record, my comment was for the last "no".

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Dr. Rich, the entire Bible is hearsay evidence, if you want to get right down to it. The only way it could *not* be hearsay evidence is if Jesus Himself had written the Bible. The red letter words are only hearsay evidence of people who heard Jesus.

[Guest]

She's right Rich. It's all hearsay. That's why you will need faith to the very end. Jesus knew that was all we would be getting (hearsay). Why do you think he continually stressed the fact that you need to have faith? (believe)

But that stuff you try to get folks to believe about Paul, and Luke, and etc. is even more hearsay than that. Because it's not even in the Bible.

How absurd, to reject someone like Paul, or Luke, because they were not one of the original disciples. Only to turn around and believe whole heartedly, a book by somebody who lives in our time, and is a million times more removed from the situation than Luke or Paul.

These writers that you put your faith in, don't even know anybody who is remotely related to an eyewitness. But you have no problem putting complete, life changing faith in them. Over the words of the Bible.

The average lay person can see the absurdity in this, but for some reason you can't. Amazing.

[Dr. Rich]

No, the whole bible is NOT hearsay evidence because of the chain of evidence has not been broken between what Jesus said and His eyewitnesses who wrote it down. It has to do with the chain of evidence and it appears that you don't understand the evidence rules.

The chain of evidence on Paul's writings is ok IF it is about Paul, but not for someone else which one didn't even know, much less have the Holy Spirit make him remember anything associated with the ministry of Jesus.

As for Richard's diatribe on this issue, I find it lacks any merit! He has absolutely no understanding on the rules of evidence.

So Pam, tell me if you can, what was the test used for Revelation 2:2? And no, this is not about history, it involves the present Kingdom of Heaven today. All seven of the messages are for and to the Kingdom of Heaven today.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Dr. Rich, I don't know what the test is for those who claim to be apostles but were found to be false. I don't know the Bible well enough to comment on that. Is this text what you claim to be irrefutable evidence that Paul was *not* sent by Christ?

I DO know what hearsay evidence is, however, and the red letter words of Jesus in the Bible are all hearsay evidence. The words of Jesus, written down by someone overhearing what He said, and then translated innumberable times, is hearsay at best. Your chain of evidence was broken.

Regarding Paul's writings, you don't know that he did not have the Holy Spirit helping him. You have to rely on ****drum roll*** hearsay evidence. Now, I don't understand a lot of what Paul wrote. That's why I don't read his writings very much. But I do believe the complete Bible to be inspired.

But that said, I don't think you could go wrong in just reading the red lettered "words of Jesus" and the Old Testament if you didn't want to read Paul's writings. That's just my own opinion.

[Guest]

Rich your little so called "test" is no test at all. It is a statement. A statement that doesn't point to anyone in particular. You can take that statement and apply to anyone you want to. That doesn't make it evidence, or a test.

The so called "evidence" you present to slander Paul, isn't even good hearsay evidence. It isn't even in the Bible. It is only your word with nothing to back it up. The books you read can't be entered into evidence, because that's only supposition, speculation, and probably a little satanic inspiration, from somebody who wasn't even an eyewitness to Paul. Much less Jesus. Maybe it is you who does not understand the chain of evidence.

And you say that those letters to the churches were written only for "the kingdom of heaven for today". That proves you don't know what you're talking about. Those letters were written to the churches that existed in that day. {back then) And were circulated around to those churches. And that is a well documented historical, provable fact.

[Musicman1228]

Rich, give it up. These people have made up their minds and nothing will change them. It's not your fault, or theirs for that matter. Soon we will know one way or the other whether any of us are correct in our beliefs. I just hope that the word 'soon' doesn't leave any of us standing outside the door of the marriage feast, angry at God for not seeing things their way.

[Dr. Rich]

MM--sorry man, but as for me, I can NEVER give it up! It is only going to intensify in the near future. Richard's words don't bother me, but I would guess that they bother the one who spoke the words in John 14:26.