A 2nd Century BCE
B 2nd Century CE
C 1st Century CE
D 1st Century BCE

B. Christians refer to the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament because

A They believe that the term Hebrew shuts off those who are Gentile and that by calling it the Old Testament it will be more inclusive.
B They believe that it makes a remarkable contrast between the old covenant and new covenant.
C They believe that the Hebrew Bible is an old perspective of Yahweh and have no significance to the new covenant.
D Scholars contend that the various strands of tradition woven in the Bible do not derive from older written text.

C. What does the word "canon" mean and how does it apply to the Old Testament?

A an official list of documents that a religious community accepts as authoritative and binding.
B The letters that were rejected by early biblical leaders
C Belonging to another sacred text
D Testament

D. Canon selection criteria first and foremost must be

A Written before 400 BCE
B Universally Accepted
C Written in Hebrew
D Believed to be divinely inspired

E. Which of the following in Mesopotamia and Egypt made the Hebrews vulnerable politically, socially, economically, and religiously?

A Commerce
B Hasidim
C Hieroglyphics
D None of the above

F. This Ancient Near Eastern myth parallels the story of Noah.

A Hymn to Ra
B Gilgamesh
C Hymn to Path
D Sargon I

G. After what king was the kingdom divided?

A Saul
B David
C Solomon
D Josiah

H. This Ancient Near Eastern God who is considered to be the abomination of Moab was introduced at Jerusalem by Solomon.

A Moab
B Molech
C Chemosh
D Ra

I. Which Ancient Near Eastern gods creation myth parallels the process that Elohim follows in Genesis 1?

A Ra
B Marduk
C Ptah
D Megiddo

J. Which of the following was Egypts most lasting contribution to the biblical story?

A Pyramids
B Arts
C Circumcision
D Trade

I am not supper positive but am familiar so….

B. b
C. a- i am positive
D. b- i am positive
E. b
F. b

I am a fresh person who just left Islam, and is looking into other religions. Christianity interests me because it also has the concept of eternal damnation, which makes me fear for it. I don’t care much for this life, as I am suicidal anyways. I just want to know the truth, and your opinions matter to me. If you don’t have time, then please skim thorugh it quickly, or else try to read it as much as you can. Thank you.

I will make several points.

a. There are amazingly few manuscripts of ANY text written during Jesus’ time
b. Historians of this period wrote amazingly little about religious figures anyway
c. Jesus was active for an amazingly short period of time (just three years)
d. Jesus ministered in an amazingly remote corner of the Roman Empire

1. Jesus did existed. There is no doubt about that. Archeology proves the place he resided on, while the historian Josephus also wrote about him. There are also other accounts of him. Note that these are external sources, from others who were against him.

Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Lets look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:

Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings dont even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus crucifixion:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

If only more of Thallus record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus life could be verified with a non-biblical source. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, he was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of foodbut food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

This EARLY description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed that Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers et regularly to worship Jesus.

2. Not long after his death, did the New Testament was compiled from witnesses who were alive at the time. How could it be then that all the witness accounts were myth’s?

3. The Original Testament (Torah) was already established by the Jews well BC. The New Testament was recieved by the Church from the Apostles or their close aquaintences. The teachings they recieved directly fron the Apostles, the writings were recieved by the Church in agreement with the witness of the Holy Spirit, The Church didnt institute the Scriptures, God did by the Spirit.

The book of Isaiah which was there well before Christ came or when the new testament was wrote, this is a fact even secular scholors agree on thisSo how in the world could they get so many prophecies right just about one mans life, his death, his resurection, Isaiah even tells in vivid detail how he would die, what type of beating he would recieve, even down to the beared being pulled on and spite on.
Hey!

At least read the records of others who have opposed Jesus, but prooved that hiis existence. How can you deny the ewewitness records of people back then?

I would say I am agnostic on whether there was a historical Jesus or not. I don’t think the evidence for one is as good as you depict and I will elaborate. Its also not true that its an uncontested thing by historians and scholars. There are those who think Jesus was a mythical creation and never a real person. There are those who think the Jesus written up in the Bible is a composite of several itinerant preacher types whose stories were passed and elaborated on in oral legends and then melded. If there were such a person and some of the very bizarre, supernatural things told in the Bible really occured its more likely we would have some non Biblical accounts. Things like Jesus raising many long dead prophets who then came into the city and mingled with the people or the sun being made to stand still in the sky for a long period. Julius Africanus wasn’t born until the Jesus figure would have been dead over 100 years so he can’t give eyewitness account of supernatural happenings as your question states. Only conservative scholars accept the New Testament was written by the actual disciples whose names grace it. Most believe it was written by anonymous scribes recording oral legend and doing what was common then and attributing authorship to the person whose story it supposedly related. In the process they did a lot of redaction as well.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus’ birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian’s birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus’ mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius’ birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn’t come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

1890: Poems and Hymns of Millennial Dawn
(151 poems and 333 hymns, published without music. Most were the works of well-known writers)

1896: Watch Tower of February 1 was devoted to Zions Glad Songs of the Morning
(Words for 11 songs, with music; lyrics written by Bible Students)

1900: Zions Glad Songs
(82 songs, many of them written by one Bible Student; to supplement the earlier collection)

1905: Hymns of the Millennial Dawn
(The 333 songs published in 1890, but with music)

1925: Kingdom Hymns
(80 songs, with music, especially for children)

1928: Songs of Praise to Jehovah
(337 songs, a mixture of new ones written by the Bible Students and older hymns. In the lyrics, special effort was made to break away from sentiments of false religion and from creature worship)

1944: Kingdom Service Song Book
(62 songs. Adapted to Kingdom service needs of the times. No credits were given to authors or composers)

1950: Songs to Jehovahs Praise
(91 songs. This songbook had more up-to-date themes and dispensed with archaic language. It was translatedinto 18 languages)

1966: Singing and Accompanying Yourselves With Music in Your Hearts
(119 songs covering every aspect of Christian living and worship. Music known to have originated withsecular or false-religious sources was deleted. Orchestral recordings of the entire book were made andwere extensively used as accompaniment in congregation meetings. Some vocal selections were also recorded. Starting in 1980, recordings of orchestral arrangements of Kingdom Melodies were producedso that at home individuals could enjoy music that would be upbuilding)

1984: Sing Praises to Jehovah
(225Kingdom songs, with words and melodies composed entirely by dedicated servants of Jehovah from all parts of the earth. Phonograph records and audiocassettes were produced to accompany singing)

Source: pg 240. of the Proclaimers book
This means that the current song book
(Sing to Jehovah) is 12th among a series of song books.

Yeah, I just got done studying the Proclaimers book! I thought that was so cool.

The new songs are so beautiful! We still haven’t quite gotten them down in our congregation yet, but we’re working on it!

I posted a similar question like this before, but people easily disqualify it without further reading. Below, I want to show you that there were people who opposed Jesus back then, and talked about him. These are all external referances, and had nothing to do with Bible, but tells us that a real Jesus did exist, and did get crucified. Please read some of them.

Keep in mind that it would be amazing if there was an ancient record of Jesus outside of the Bible. Jesus lived over 2000 years ago. He is an ANCIENT figure from history, and there are some things that we need to remember about historical figures and events from this period of time:

1. There are amazingly few manuscripts of ANY text written during Jesus’ time
2. Historians of this period wrote amazingly little about religious figures anyway
3. Jesus was active for an amazingly short period of time (just three years)
4. Jesus ministered in an amazingly remote corner of the Roman Empire

Now, given that these facts are true about the life of Jesus and the people who were recording history two thousand years ago, it would be surprising to find much ancient material related to Jesus at all. But, there ARE a number of ancient non-biblical records that tell of Jesus! Lets take a look at some of them and lets try to reconstruct what they tell us about Jesus. Lets pretend like there are NO remaining Biblical records about Jesus. Imagine that all of them were destroyed. Lets see what we can reconstruct not from people who loved Jesus, but from hostile eye-witnesses (people who did NOT love Jesus). Remember, that hostile eyewitnesses are sometimes the best witnesses we can have. While they may try their best to interpret what they see in a negative way, they confirm, at least, basic facts about the existence of the man we know as Jesus Christ.

Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Lets look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:

Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings dont even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus crucifixion:

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

If only more of Thallus record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus life could be verified with a non-biblical source. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, he was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of foodbut food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

This EARLY description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed that Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers et regularly to worship Jesus.

Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome)." (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief." (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this very EARLY account, we know that Jesus had an immediate impact on his follo

Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus’ birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian’s birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus’ mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius’ birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn’t come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Im a Holy Roller Im a Rasta rollin on
Most times I roll the bible but somethings I use a bong
Cuz there aint nothin sweeter than a Sunday with the herb
Especially when you smoke it with Gods word

Holy roller rollin on, rollin toke’n singin songs
Amazing grass how sweet the smell
Lite my spliff with the flames of Hell
Halleluja, Hell Yeah
Holy Roller rollin on, Holy Roller rollin on

I smoke a lot of pages they lift me up on every hit
but I stay away from Revelation cuz thats some crazy $h*t
I smoked the garden of Eden and even Noahs flood
I tried the book of Mormon but I think with molded bud

Hymn Win

they why in he77 do christians do that to people who dont read the bible. you qoute from it but you dont get that not everyone reads from it. that’s like me yelling outside your door, qouting from the cookbook and persecuting you for not cooking the way betty crocker tells you to cook your meatloaf.
PA i’m from south texas! you nut! we get door to door visits from christians who are asking if we need jesus. there is a pagan store in town and the minister said,"they will sing hymns till everyone is saved!" why?? it’s not a fantasy world, it’s the southern baptist world!

No, it goes against being humble.

however, some Muslims do not commit to all Islam legislation.
u can find two Muslims in the same HOUSE one wearing Hijab and the other is not (b/c) it is a free choice.

but if u ask the one that does not wear Hijab, " Do u believe that Hijab is Allah’s command or Quran legislation?"
she must answer yes.

All Muslims believe and agree in all practices, but differ in how they commit to them

and of course, they differ in cultural things that Islam does not forbid.
I shall give u an example…
It is allowed for a man who proposed to a girl to set with her in her parent’s house in private.
however, some cultures, ike in Yemen wont allow that. not saying it is Haram (Islamic-ally forbidden), but nit culturally liked.
here in Jordan, u can find some parents who allow it, other do not based on their.
when u ask both of them will say that it is allowed in Islam.

u can Imagine things in the world in Venn’s diagram where a box holds all things in life, a small circle includes the haram things, a circle that contain the haram circle and culturally forbidden circle is there.
u may find a bigger circle containing the two and thones’s system of life.

these r all forbidden things.

Book: John, or Hebrews

Song: I have several, Amazing Grace, Little is Much, I’ll fly Away, Leaning on the Everlasting Arms, How Great Thou Art, In the Garden (the lyrics are just so moving), I know I am missing so many of my favourites in this category. I, if you couldn’t tell, grew up on hymns…and I’m only 17.

Movie: Tommy Boy, or anything with a football related theme.

Glossing over facts, and going by what a preacher tells you about evolution, I can understand why someone would think it’s silly. Do your homework! Read a damned textbook!

1: I have faith in God being both male and female, and from the male aspect of God came Jesus and from the female aspect of God came the Holy Spirit.
2: I have faith in God are being one in unity, but with three modes of operation, so God behaves in three ways and acts in three ways, He is the Son, He is the Holy Spirit and He is the Farther. I reject the trinity and in its place have a a unity of one.
3: I have faith in the experince of the divine through experiences in life, from seeing images and the wind that goes through you. So I am a gnostic in the sense that I believe that I can have personal experiences with God Most High.
4: The Bible is used alongside other texts, from other faith systems as a mean to develop my faith and understanding of Gods nature. I also use the Book of John The Baptist, The Hymn of the Pearl (Act of Thomas) and the Gospel of Truth, etc.
Do these make me a Heresiarch to Christians?
Am I a heretic?
Seeker of God Most Hig
can you explain, your answer.

Thank you.

by my religion you are. i am christian orthodox and only by taking into consideration to duality of god (male vs female) you are a bit of a heretic ). the holly trinity is God in three beings reject that and …again you commit heresy.
if you read and trust other bibles than catholic or christian orthodox by both religions you are not a true believer and if proclaim them right…you are again a heretic!
so my dear friend i am sorry to say that any of the above things makes you eligible for confession! ))

During the Great Schism in 1054 rounds. Constantinople Michael Kerullary in a message to the patriarch. Antioch Peter accused the Latins among other heresies, and that they "ostrizayut beard." The same accusation confirms Russian Reverend Theodosius of Kiev in the "Discourse on the Christian faith and Latin." Ancient Russian Orthodox strictly prohibited bradobritie, seeing it as an external sign of heresy, apostasy from orthodoxy. Maxim the Greek writing (ch. 137): "If the curse deviation from the commandments of God like a did not hear? Them in the sacred hymns, the same oath to be exterminating his own beard with a razor." Stoglavy council said that: "… not to shave his mustache and Brad did not postrigati; takovyya bou legion, the Orthodox, but latynskaya and heretical traditions of the Greek king Constantine Kovalina, and about this apostolic and patristic ?????? rules prohibit and deny; usually the holy Apostle says: if someone shaves his beard and pass away tacos, not worthy of him sluzhiti or Prayers for him parlor or communion bread, nor sveschi to bring it to the church, with the wrong bou da reckon, from the heretic bo se navykosha. The same rule 96 of the cathedral in Trulli Polatnem of ostrizanii Brad …".

In the era of resistance bradobritiyu Time of Troubles, as the Latin tradition, strongly reinforced. In Russian Potrebnike 1639 and the Missal in 1647 was placed sermon: "Do not shave the mustache and Brad not postrigati. In Pain? Th potrebnike said: "The curse bogonenavidimago bludolyubnago image and charm do? Egubitelnaya and dizziness heresy hedgehog ostrizati shaving and beard" (l. 600 ob.). Kirilova book (Chapter 26) and book about faith (Ch. 28) also called bradobritie Latin heresy.

Old Believers refused to shave their beards, even under pressure from the government of Emperor. Peter I, preferring to pay a special fee for the beard and bear the burden of double taxation.

And to this day Old Believers firmly hold the patristic tradition.

Christian Orthodox Priests usually Do as in Bible. Russian/ Greek/ Serbian and all Orthodox Churches I have ever been To ,, ( The Priests have beards)

In the Apostolic Constitution, ALL Christian men who were able to were supposed to grow facial hair. It has to do with accepting manliness – women and children don’t have facial hair, but men do.

"Men may not destroy the hair of their beards and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the Law says, You will not deface your beards. For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men." Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c.390, E) 7.392. (1)

Saint Clement of Alexandria had a lot to say about this –

How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them!For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest–a sign of strength and rule." St. Clement of Alexandria, 2.275

"This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the superior nature.It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness. St. Clement of Alexandria, 2.276

"It is not lawful to pluck out the beard, mans natural and noble adornment." St. Clement of Alexandria, 2.277

This is one reason why facial hair is more common in Greece and Eastern Europe than in Western Europe/America.

From Monachos Site

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread

http://urantiabook.org/urantiabook/bible_history/hist_1_1.htm

* AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
o 1. In the Reformation, the Protestants, in rejecting an infallible Pope, put in his place an infallible book–the Bible.
o 2. Christ is the only final and absolute authority for the New Testament
o 3. Christ’s brotherhood is not authoritarian–the Roman Catholic Church is.
o 4. To prevent just such a mistake as the Protestants made, Christ left no written records. Only the "word" as it is in Christ is infallible.
o 5. The Catholic Church does not regard the Scriptures as being infallible-only their interpretation.
o 6. The Catholics regard "tradition" as being equal to the Bible as authority for doctrine and dogmas.
o 7. On the whole, the Roman Church has discouraged its lay members from acquiring a knowledge of the Bible.
o 8. Luther said: "The Bible is the manger in which Christ is laid."
o 9. The human side of the Scriptures is shown in the inconsistencies and inaccuracies; the divine hand in the revelation of eternal truth.
o 10. The Bible is inseparably bound up with the whole organism of the Christian faith and experience.
o 11. The Bible is a "man-selected" group of writing. The Maccabees of the Apocrypha are more scriptural than the Song of Solomon or the book of Esther.
o 12. In creating the canon of the New Testament it was the intention to include only those writings of apostolic origin.
o 13. The books of the New Testament were not written as history or biography — they were written solely to propagate the faith.
o 14. Even Jesus never set himself up as an absolute authority.
o 15. Paul never claimed inspiration or infallibility. He said: "Judge for yourselves what I say." I Cor. 10:15.
o 16. The belief of Protestants in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, its absolute authority, led to their breaking up into a multitude of sects.
o 17. The recognition of the fallibility of Scripture in the twentieth century is bringing them together.
o 18. But this does not mean that every individual should set himself up as the one and only interpreter of the Scriptures.
o 19. We should look critically upon the Bible when it contradicts the facts of nature–such as the teaching that the earth is flat. (This has nothing to do with genuine miracles.)
o 20. Symbolism should also be questioned–like the story of Jonah and the whale.
o 21. Never forget the fact of the "evolution of revelation." Remember also that there have been retrogressions.
o 22. Do not be misled by the ambiguities of the Bible or by its allegories–such as interpreting the voluptuous Song of Solomon as representing the love of Christ for his church.
o 23. And do not accept all of the apostolic teachings as the teaching of Christ.
o 24. The mistaken reporting of Jesus’ teaching is shown by the record found in Matt. 24. See The Urantia Book, p. 1912.
o 25. Certain portions of the Bible have had a non-Jewish origin. Note the following:
+ Isa. 16, 17; From a Moabite elegy.
+ Ps. 104; Sun hymn of Ikhnaton.
+ Prov. 22:17-23:14; Maxims of Amenomope.
+ Ex. 20-23; The Code of Hammurabi.

* V. THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD
o 1. Is it proper to speak of the Bible as the word of God? The gospel message was called the word of God. See Rev. 1:2. "Who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ."
o 2. Sometimes referred to as "the word of the cross." See I Cor. 1:18.
o 3. In Phil. 2:16, called "the word of life." In Col. 1:5, called "the word of the truth."
o 4. The gospel of John refers to Christ as "the word.$’ See John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
o 5. And in speaking of the incarnation, John says: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:14.
o 6. The Urantia Book speaks of the Eternal Son as "the living and divine Word." (p. 73)
o 7. Strictly speaking, the Bible should not be called the word of God. Inasmuch as God may be speaking in and through the Bible, it would be qualifiedly the divine word.
o 8. It was in this sense that the Urantia revelation was spoken of as the "Word made Book."

Nope, actually I only take the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Gospel. The rest is just what it is, the Bible. Thanks for asking though.

www.uua.org Visit here to learn more.

http://downhere.com/home

I really like the art of illusion. Like magic illusions and card tricks, which I practice sometimes. I’m also really into the technology they use in theme parks to make things seem real. I know all about the rides at Disney World and their history and how all of the special effects work, and I would love to imagineer for Disney.

I like watching sports sometimes if they’re on. I know the names of football and baseball teams, but I never know who won what games because I never go out of my way to watch sports. I’m in shape, but I jog and work out but don’t really play team sports, because I’m not that competitive – I just like doing my best.

I love music, but I’m not really into the mainstream stuff. I like some songs by certain rock and roll groups, for instance, the Beatles, but in many popular songs I don’t like the messages. I feel ignorant of most modern artists and if someone comes up to me and says, for instance, "have you heard Vanilla Twilight?" I don’t know what song they are talking about. I go to church, but I don’t like Christian Contemporary music as much as other people do – I think hymns have better music and lyrics and are more meaningful. I’m really into movie songs and music and I play the piano, usually inventing my own versions of songs I like. I’m really good at improvising.

I like reading, but I haven’t read the stuff that everybody else is reading, like Twilight – my parents wouldn’t let me and they monitor closely what I’m reading. Twilight doesn’t really sound very appealing to me, but there are a lot of books I would like to read that I’m afraid my parents wouldn’t let me read.

Sometimes my parents accuse me of not reading enough, because I find that I can’t take in what other writers have to say when I’m writing a book myself. I’ve done a lot of fantasy writing. I like to write stories around amazing things I would like to do. Next I want to write a book called "The Butterfly Dream" about two teenagers who have spent their entire lives in virtual computer simulations experienced through stereographic goggles and special sensory suits – until they escape their suits during a power failure and flee from the science lab they find themselves in to discover the real world.

I like video games. I’m better than most people at them and I’ve beaten games that most people find so hard they would just give up. I’m incredibly persistent and never give up on something once I start. But I don’t seem to play any of the games that other people play. I like games that really present challenges that make you think. Some of my favorite games have been parts of the almost completely obscure Frogger series.

I just never think about the things that other people think about. I don’t have much in common with other people. What do you honestly think of me?

If you’re American and young then you will feel immense pressure to fit in to this society that is celebrity obsessed and has a superior attitude to rest of the world. Beauty pageants, hazing rituals to join a group and fit in, calling people geeks for being different and intelligent, says it all doesn’t it?! I could go on and on but just think this, you are a valid human being, no worse or no better, no weirder. Stay interested in the things you like that make you happy. Live your life by your own moral compass, kind thoughts, good deeds and never become a following sheep. Stay individual and if you’re getting bullied get some help and think how boring their lives really are that they have to fulfill their time by insulting someone else. Live your dreams, don’t put a label on yourself.

Eu no entendo Portugus bem muito mas talvez voc queria http://christianharp.yolasite.com/

Talvez tem aqui, http://books.google.com.br/books?ei=rC4US_TbF8SQuAfngrS4CQ&ct=result&q=Christian+Harp&btnG=Pesquisar+livros, o livro que voc quer.

Try the two links I provided, maybe they’ll guide you to the book you want, for example Google books has a number of books called Christian Harp, some of which are over a hundred years old. From Google books you can even download a PDF file of the book you think is the one you want. Check it out and let me know.

Abrao!

So anyways…

Athiests:
What exactly is it that you have against Christian rock? I’ve heard a lot of mixed opinions, and I’m interested. The main argument that I’ve seen seems to be that all of it is either incredibly sissy and lame (which is kind of in the eye of the beholder, but either way), or that it’s relentlessly shoving Jesus down your throat. Please enlighten me as to how lines such as "break through the ribcage and tear the heart out from everyone you love" and "keep your religion, don’t need your lies" (both from Christian songs by Christian bands) are either.
I mean, if you’re listening to Kutless or something, you should be expecting worship, but there are so many other bands in the genre that have *maybe* three or four songs at most in their entire discography that even mention God at all. So, maybe don’t condemn an entire category of music because of a few select artists. Most Christian rock is actually just music about life and struggles we’ve all been through – possibly referencing faith, but not in a bible-thumping shove-it-in-your-face sort of way. I mean, I’ve got religious songs about sex and drugs. It’s not all about being perfect and thinking Jesus is the bomb or anything.
And, to be clear, I’m not at all saying you have to like it. Go right ahead hating the stuff if you want, as long as you can state a reason beyond "oh noes! It’s Christian!"

Christians:
Why is the opinion of "rock is the devil’s music" so incredibly popular? And why does it also pertain to rock performed by Christ-followers? I don’t remember seeing a verse in the bible that condemned music of any kind. There are more commands to sing than to pray. I mean, okay, rock is a genre that, in secular circles at least, is often performed by people with questionable morals, but the music itself is amoral. It’s the lyrics and the intent that gives it any kind of alignment. Christian rock especially – at least a large majority – is quire morally sound. Saying "don’t listen to rock because some of it is evil" is akin to saying "don’t eat food because some of it is bad for you." And before claiming that lyrics in a lot of Christian rock songs sound very non-Christian (which sometimes they do, granted) please keep in mind that the lyrics are often obscure when revealing the meaning behind the song. It doesn’t need to be worship to be Christian.
Another argument I keep hearing is that Christian rock bands are inherently evil because they are "of the world." I see a difference between conforming to the world and becoming like those you came to save, in order to save them. And on the ever-present issue of tattoos and piercings that are so popular with rock, it seems like there are a ton of people who missed the memo about not being bound by Old Testament law. Tattoos and such are condemned in the same book as wearing mixed fabrics and cutting your hair, so don’t condemn one rule and disregard the rest.
People have come to Christ because of Christian rock. Standing on the sidelines in a choir robe performing ancient hymns is not going to do a great job of converting a lot of today’s youth. Just saying.

So yeah, that’s basically my opinion on both sides. If you’re unbiased, respectful and interesting with your replies, you have a good shot at a best answer.

Thanks in advance!

~Tiger
For the record, I’m asking about those who do have an issue with it. If you don’t that’s fine with me.

I don’t condemn the entire category.

Sure, there is quite a lot of sh*tty Christian rock out there.
But there are some great bands as well! Take Flyleaf, for instance.
I love Flyleaf! =)

However, I’m one of those people who breathe, eat and sleep WORDS.
So naturally, lyrics mean a lot to me. I always listen to them, and in the majority of cases I can make them relate to my own life, or to something which is on my mind. But in the case of overly Christianity-oriented songs, I’m not able to do that, considering I’m an atheist. It feels alienating and impersonal, and even though it won’t *completely* destroy the song for me, at least not if it also has a good beat and a consummate vocalist, it will drastically impair the effect it has on me overall. ..So I prefer listening to songs that are NOT all "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!!" because of that.