Christianity is not Islam or any other religion.

The God of Christianity is not the gods of other religions. To say so is to say god is schizoid and unsure who he is.

Any simple reading of the beliefs of religions show they have vastly different gods who have vastly different expectations of their followers.

This modern all religions worship the same god is nonsense. An excuse to allow one to create god in their own images according to their own desires and rules.

The idea of one True God with one firm set of expectations that do not conform to what one desires personally is repulsive to many. Yet it is exactly true.

The god of Islam teaches contrary to the God of Christianity.

And, as with the Codes, as the topic starter notes, they have to go outside the Bible and draw in materials from elsewhere to make their claims.

They go to Gnosis. And any student can see that there is a renewed interest in Gnosis today. National Geographic on the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Enoch and more being referenced on theology forum cites in attempts to redefine the Bible.

And all of them, as stated, redefine Christ. They lover him.

Islam makes him a prophet, not God incarnate. Gnosis lowers him. And on and on.

All are entitled to believe what they will. And all will be responsible for what they believe.

There just needs to be intellectual honesty, using logic and reasoning, to admit all these beliefs are not about the same god, but different, competing gods.

But, of course, this also means that only one or none of these beliefs can be true. Leaving the others to face the consequences of their errors.

So why do so many push all roads lead to god? Because if they can embrace all are right that removes the burden of proving what they believe to be true or not. After all, in the end, the one god of all will embrace them for trying and make it all right.

You wrote, “The God of Christianity is not the gods of other religions. To say so is to say God is schizoid and unsure who he is.”

You are not going to have much luck in creating God in the image of your words. God is a bit bigger than that.

You wrote, “…they have vastly different gods who have vastly different expectations of their followers.”

It is not a question of what our puny human expectations are, but rather what God’s are.

Your wrote, “An excuse to allow one to create god in their own images according to their own desires and rules.”

If it is good enough for you, others will try. In Islam, Allah (an Arabic word for God used by Christians in the Middle East outside of the Copts) means God in English. As you know is also a word for God in other languages.

You wrote, “… True God … do(es) not conform to what one desires personally … is exactly true.”

Would we feel so important, even at the expense of a grand conception of God.

You wrote, “The god of Islam teaches contrary to the God of Christianity.”

If that God is contrary to your God and you think you are Christian, then who else could possibly be wrong?

You wrote: “…they … draw in materials from elsewhere to make their claims.”

If it is good enough for you why not anyone. I do not think that your last statement will be found in Scripture. Care to give a book chapter and verse that matches it word for word?

You wrote, “They lover him.” Lover him?

You wrote, “…only one or none of these beliefs can be true.”

Then it is you who is also wrong.

You wrote, “So why do so many push all roads lead to god? Because if they can embrace all are right that removes the burden of proving what they believe to be true or not. After all, in the end, the one god of all will embrace them for trying and make it all right.”

Yes, God will also embrace you, in fact Jesus the Christ already has. The Supreme Pontiff of my church, Benedict XVI, a few years before he had been elevated to the Chair of Peter was asked how many ways there were to find God. He said that there were as many way as there were people of good faith looking.

Sorry, but what you said is illogical.

I never accused Catholicism of abiding by the Bible. It doesn't. The ever changing and evolving pronouncments of Popes.

At one time no sacraments, at another 23 and what is esential for salvation one year is not the next.

But really, you are a member on CTZ. Please discuss it there. We have some ex-RCC that would love to discuss this issue with you.

You wrote: “Sorry, but what you said is illogical.”

Your stand-alone statement demonstrates the logomorphic thought of literalists (the assumption that words have abracadabra and open sesame like power within their utterance or even power extracted in the reading of them).

You wrote: “I never accused Catholicism of abiding by the Bible. It doesn't. The ever changing and evolving pronouncements of Popes.”

If you mean, dose the Catholic Church spring from the Bible, the answer is no. The bible comes from the Church and Church does not come from the Bible. There was no bible in the upper room at the inception of the institutional church, and Jesus was with the father before the beginning and is the I AM.

Let me quote a statement on the canon of the New Testament: “The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.”

Like it or not, your Bible comes down to you through the hands of members of the Greek and Roman Church. Well, unless you think it really does come via God by a printing house in Grand Rapids, MI. What does God charge per copy these days?

You wrote: “At one time no sacraments, at another 23 and what is esential for salvation one year is not the next.”

If you are a “born again” believer in salvation, you dogma would date in text from the publication of “The Fundamentals” c. 1912-15---assuming that you are a literalist on all parts of your faith.

As for going to the CTZ, go there if you like. If you would like me to put you in contact with “born-again” folks who have become Roman Catholics, I can do that. I would not know why you would want to talk to them any more than I would to your ex-RCC folks. Your faith and their faith need not my embrace--be with in worship with whom you will.

The God of my faith is grand enough to accommodate any loving seeking of Him, Her, or It. I do like St. Hildegard von Bingen's words, “Jesus the Christ is the Life of life.”

By the way, the words "boran again" referent to "salvation" are not found in the oldest extant Scripture.

I know the history of the Bible formation.

The RCC did not write the books of the Bible. The Apostles did.

The RCC canon of the Bible has been rejected by all serious Bible historians. Meaning the Apocrapha inclusions and text alterations.

The Bible canon we use today was not formed by Catholic anything. What was already known and accepted was affirmed by a Council.

And born-again not found before 1912? Well, maybe in the Catholic altered Bibles, but not in the real deals. But I can find it in Bibles back into the 1500s. And in manuscripts before that, prior to the existence of the RCC.

What is not found in the Bibel is the RCC, including the Pope.

So, you are free to follow the ever changing 'revelations' by God to the Pope and College. I will stick with the Apostles, Prophets and Christ.

Your statements remain illogical. Bible says saved by grace (not the RCC redefined word either). Quo'ran says by works and then if their god wants you or not. Buddhists say there is no god. Diests see a god who does not care, just watches. Yep. all the same god... not!

By the way, god is not a proper name. It simply means what one holds superior to all. Thus why in the Bible God is God and pagan gods are gods, even when they are not real gods.

So, in the religions of the world, today, there remains God and gods.

But enough. Points and views made. And this is a news forum, not a theology one.

You wrote: "The RCC did not write the books of the Bible. The Apostles did."

After declaring that you "know the history of the Bible formation," you then contend that the Apostles wrote the Scriptures. I think that is a bit of an overstatement; care to tell me all about Mark and Luke?

As for the Church, did any of the Apostles meet in ecclesia? If not, to whom were Paul and Peter, etc. writing their epistles? And to bishops of what?

You wrote, "The RCC canon of the Bible has been rejected by all serious Bible historians. Meaning the Apocrypha inclusions and text alterations."

I would assure you that the Church historians, clear back to Esubius and Origen, were serious about the history of our faith.

As for the canon, you apparently are unaware that the Greek Church's Holy Bible includes all of the books found in the canon of the Roman Church and three additional books and an additional Psalm (i.e.: 1 Esdras, 3-4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151).

The Slavic Bible contains all that is in the Roman and Greek Orthodox plus two more. Some Oriental Churches have fewer texts.

In addition, some Protestant Bibles, like the original King James, include the Apocrypha (intertestamental texts and some extends to other books).

As for the Holy Scripture of the Rabbinic Jews (who are consider to have fostered some of the greatest of Hebrew historian--I am sure you have read all of them) they do not include the intertestamental Books in their TANAK (Torah (Law), Nebi'im (Prophets) and Kethubim (Writings). However, these texts are of great religious import to them.

For example, Hanukkah (not a High Holy Day, but and important minor one that we and they associate with the menorah) has its observance rooted in the intertestamental texts (Apocryphal). There is told about Judah Maccabee leading the Jews in revolt and recapture of the Second Temple from the Seleucid Greeks. There followed eight days of rededication (thus the lights of the milti-candelabra called the menorah).

In addition to the TANAK, the Jews have other important holy texts that are not included within the TANAK--such are the Talmuds, Targum, etc.

And even more important to Rabbinic Jews, is the Oral Torah or Torah sheb'al peh. This is the law spoken to Moses directly by God and passed down by word of mouth. In Rabbinic Judaism it is as sacred as Scripture and as important to the worship of God as it the Torah by itself (the written Torah or Torah shebikhtav).

You wrote: “And born-again not found before 1912? Well, maybe in the Catholic altered Bibles, but not in the real deals. But I can find it in Bibles back into the 1500s. And in manuscripts before that, prior to the existence of the RCC.”

The oldest extant texts of scripture are a bit older than the 1500s. By over a millennium and surprise, surprise, they are not in English either.

I wondered how the NIV handled the translation of born again relative to salvation. It is not a Catholic Bible as you know, but a very good effort of translation. John 3:3 and 7 have “born again” footnoted as “or ‘born from above.’” Of course the NIV Bible scholars may also be heretics.

The Moody Bible Inst. Publication, “The Fundamentals,” drew its doctrine out of their interpretation of the King James as it existed in the Bible Belt prior to the 1912-15 publication. These 12 little books are what gave rise to the term Fundamentalist for a group of American Bible literalists. By the way, some translators of the NIV may well be into the “born again” perspective, that is between them and God.

You also wrote: “Thus why in the Bible God is God and pagan gods are gods, even when they are not real gods.”

The great meaning that you find in capital letters within your modern English version of the Bible leads me to believe that you are not familiar with ancient miniscule and uncial script.

I wonder if you think that the entire UPPER CASE TEXT of Revelation 17:5 in King James Bibles means that God was shouting, or that way-back-then they wrote titles in all caps. Would it also be ok if this text (Rev. 17:5) were instead enclosed in quotation marks, as it appears in some other Bibles?

Nice to exchange comments with you, however if the meat of what you have to say is to be confined to short and unexplored burst such as: “real deal,” “changing revelations,” “illogical,” “same god … not” and other such words, I don’t think there is any reason for you to waste your effort on me.

Also, your views of other religious perspectives might need to be brushed up a bit if you would like to effectively reflect them to their faithful(my faith included). To wit, the Buddhists that I know would tell you that you have missed the point of what they believe. And, not all of Deists think of the Essence of reality in terms of the watchmaker who lets creation tick away.

And from your expert redaction of the Quran, I am not sure that people of Islam would think that your pronouncements well fit their faith. However I have only know two people of Islam-—a colleague who was a Shiite and a delightful friend who was a Sufi. If I were not a committed Irish Catholic, I might like to be a Sufi. And for them, I do not believe I would have to give up reading the Tao te Ching nor my 1611 reprint of the King James Bible.

May God bless you and of course God already has,

Islewood

Bravo. Thanks for your lucid, rational, and compelling response.

Again, you are getting into issues and depths inappropriate for a news site.

There are answers for all you statement. But not here.

My goodness, is one of you David Epps on Crack?