Where Do We Go at Death if not heaven or hell?

[sky]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

slayer/sky are very one sided and dogmatic in their approach. i'm finding it hard to tell them apart from any other dogmatic person.

Is the Pot calling the Kettle black ?

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by sky123

Of course it was removed otherwise.....

“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).” would not have been necessary.


Pope Vigilius was actually arrested for his belief in Reincarnation so we can assume that many others did believe including Canonised Saints.

A pope believing in Reincarnation has nothing to do with the Bible. There are millions of Christians today, including church leaders, and the Catholic church as a whole, who believe things that are unbiblical, and it is entirely illogical to use any of these people as proof or in support for anything other than the fact that they have distorted the word of God. The Bible is the basis for whether something is a Christian teaching, not some person's beliefs. Likewise illogical is saying that Christians making a formal statement against unbiblical beliefs somehow proves that those beliefs have some sort of validity outside of the fact that some people had an extremely distorted view of Christianity. Again, without scriptural evidence you have absolutely no valid argument.

[davidmartin]

Originally Posted by SlayerOfLight

lol, as if fundamentalists aren't.

I just like to take the middle position, i can't help that!

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by SlayerOfLight

Many of those manuscripts differ from each other. Take the dead sea scrolls for example, they are generally rejected by most Christians because it doesn't support everything their own religion taught them. And I find it hard to believe that there was once an original piece of text literally written by some wizard in the sky. Speaking of evidence, there is no evidence for that neither.

More lies and ignorance. The differences between manuscripts in 99.999% of the cases is microscopically insignificant.

It makes no sense to say that Christians reject the dead sea scrolls. The fact is that some of the texts in the scrolls are scripture and some are not.

You seem to be clueless on how the Bible came to exist. It is the inspired word of God, which means God inspired men to write it, men who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. God did not write it himself.

It's obviously that you need to do a lot of research and study before you can pass as anywhere near knowledgeable on this topic.

[davidmartin]

Vince people have different views on the infallibility of scripture.
i see it as useful and a guide to life, but don't go further than that. some parts were inspired more than other parts. that sort of thing
what I don't do is like Slayer and Sky that say that there is nothing or very little good about it, when it is the interpretation as much as anything that matters. this scripture is good enough to find Jesus in it

[Dargor]

Originally Posted by VinceField

More lies and ignorance. The differences between manuscripts in 99.999% of the cases is microscopically insignificant.

It makes no sense to say that Christians reject the dead sea scrolls. The fact is that some of the texts in the scrolls are scripture and some are not.

You seem to be clueless on how the Bible came to exist. It is the inspired word of God, which means God inspired men to write it, men who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. God did not write it himself.

It's obviously that you need to do a lot of research and study before you can pass as anywhere near knowledgeable on this topic.

Well you probably don't even realise that the true original manuscripts have never been found. And by that, I mean that the actual parchments on which the biblical writers literally wrote their words.

And since the bibles we have today are so full of scientific errors to a point it's laughable, I am more inclined to think that the writers were under influence of some kind of narcotic substance, rather than being indwelled by a holy force. At least, if all of the manuscripts are 100% accurate (which I doubt).

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by SlayerOfLight

Well you probably don't even realise that the true original manuscripts have never been found. And by that, I mean that the actual parchments on which the biblical writers literally wrote their words.

And since the bibles we have today are so full of scientific errors to a point it's laughable, I am more inclined to think that the writers were under influence of some kind of narcotic substance, rather than being indwelled by a holy force. At least, if all of the manuscripts are 100% accurate (which I doubt).

Of course I know that we don't have the original writings. The presence of scientific errors has no bearing on the authenticity of scripture as divinely inspired. Being inspired by God does not mean you possess all knowledge of everything. It means you possess knowledge of the nature of God through direct revelation. Again you present no logic in your arguments and display a complete lack of understanding.

[sky]

Originally Posted by VinceField

A pope believing in Reincarnation has nothing to do with the Bible. There are millions of Christians today, including church leaders, and the Catholic church as a whole, who believe things that are unbiblical, and it is entirely illogical to use any of these people as proof or in support for anything other than the fact that they have distorted the word of God. The Bible is the basis for whether something is a Christian teaching, not some person's beliefs. Likewise illogical is saying that Christians making a formal statement against unbiblical beliefs somehow proves that those beliefs have some sort of validity outside of the fact that some people had an extremely distorted view of Christianity. Again, without scriptural evidence you have absolutely no valid argument.

Yes, you will find Reincarnation in the Bible, a few verses have been Posted They obviously didn't remove all of them after the Decree was written and forced upon the Christians.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by SlayerOfLight

Or it was removed from scripture, which would hardly surprise me. Unfortunately we'll never know the original uncorrupted teachings of that wretched horror novel because it has been passed over and rewritten so many times throughout the centuries.

What you say does have some merit.
.
.
.
The more I study the Bible, the more I am convinced some of the major alterations to the Bible were deliberate.

For example in Hebrew the word Elohim is translated into God (Genesis 1:1). I suspect the reason English translations use God is that when Genesis 1:1 was being translated from Hebrew to Greek, the translators translated the Hebrew word Elohim into the the Greek work for God.

Seems like a dumb translator issue but I suspect there were other issues. One issue does not show up in Paleo-Hebrew nor old Hebrew, but in modern Hebrew it appears there are multiple variations of the word Elohim when in the other older languages this was not apparent if you were reading the text.

Another issue, Paleo-Hebrew and Old Hebrew appear to have been tonal languages.

[sky]

Originally Posted by davidmartin

Vince people have different views on the infallibility of scripture.
i see it as useful and a guide to life, but don't go further than that. some parts were inspired more than other parts. that sort of thing
what I don't do is like Slayer and Sky that say that there is nothing or very little good about it, when it is the interpretation as much as anything that matters. this scripture is good enough to find Jesus in it

' what I don't do is like Slayer and Sky that say that there is nothing or very little good about it, '


I can speak for myself, thank you....