Yuyutsu,

Your second link was to the article by Dr Maurice Mizrahi, 'Behind the Bible'.

Didn't you notice his statement, 'Job (fictional?'. This is not a statement that Job IS fictional but a question about whether it is. It's a question, not an assertion. See: http://images.shulcloud.com/618/uploads/PDFs/Divrei_Torah/behindthebible.pdf.

OT scholar Dr Gleason Archer admitted 'some scholars have questioned the historicity of the whole Book of Job’. He continued, 'Many have speculated that he was a mere fictional character' (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan 1982:235-236).

Archer rejects the fictional understanding because there are ample grounds 'to support the full historicity of both Job himself and the details' in the Book of Job. These are:

1. Job 1:1 states that 'there was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job'. He was a real person in a specific place.

2. References to Job in Ezekiel 14:14 where he is grouped with Noah and Daniel, righteous men. Here Job is as factual as Noah and Daniel.

3. The confrontation of God (Yahweh) with Satan in Job is soundly based, on the same level of Jesus' temptation by Satan (Matthew 4).

4. The linguistic claim of the presence of more Aramaic terms than Hebrew 'is tenuous', i.e. questionable. Commercial relations in North Arabia in Aramaic began ca. 2000 BC. 'The extent of Aramaic influence in Job is overrated’.

See: A. Guilleaume, "The Unity of the Book of Job," Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 4 (1964): 26-46. He argued there are no demonstrable Aramaisms in the speeches of Elihu (Job 32-37).

Archer concludes: 'There are no tenable grounds for the theory of a fictional job' (1982:236). See James 5:11, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jas+5%3A11&version=NIVUK.

Sells,

You stated:

<<the Church has already fallen. All Nicene denominations that I know of have a critical shortage of priests/ministers who serve smaller and smaller congregations>>

I consider this is stretching a theological view of denominations at Nicaea. This Council was sometimes called an ecumenical council. For us in the 21st century, it means a bringing together of various institutions/denominations.

However, for the early church, the ecumenical councils meant the involvement of Christian leaders from across the Roman Empire.

"Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 bishops actually participated. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318...." (http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/f/First_Council_of_Nicaea.htm)

Which were the Nicene denominations? I don't find language like that used in the fourth century's Council of Nicaea. 'The Church' included bishops from East and West of the Roman Empire but there is no mention of The Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church or Anglicans.

Anglicans claim to be associated with the planting of Christianity in England in the 3rd century. Three British bishops were sent to Council of Aires (France) in 314. St Augustine was sent to evangelise a largely pagan community in southern England by Pope Gregory the Great. 'Under King Henry VIII in the 16th century, the Church of England broke with Rome, largely because Pope Clement VII refused to grant Henry an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon' (Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglicanism).

Britannica's article shows that Evangelicals did not contribute to the decline in religious life in the UK in the 18th century: 'Despite impressive reform efforts John Wesley, Charles Simeon, John Newton, and other clergy associated with the Evangelical revival prompted a surge of new religious fervour. Evangelical laity such as William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect fought slavery and encouraged social reform'.

So what's the problem with a shortage of priests/ministers in mainline denominations? It's not because of the Evangelicals.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, thank you, I am aware that there are many philosophies within Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism too (http://ocoy.org/dharma-for-christians/the-six-systems-of-hindu-philosophy).

«no matter the topic there's always someone with a counter point»

Yes, because the Truth cannot be confined by words.

Once you attain the shining self-evident, eternal, indestructible, incorruptible and totally-fulfilling ultimate Truth, all arguments will be settled for you and you will be able to explain this truth in so many different ways to so many different people. Yet while your listeners can become inspired by your words, none of them will be able to grasp the Truth that you tell them, because the mind, any mind, does not hold this capacity.

You seem so sincere in your efforts to learn and explore the truth, which is wonderful, and indeed you already had some success when your prayers were answered, but at this stage you still attempt to gather information and no amount of information amounts to actual knowledge.

«As to the Jewish faith I would give the same filter as I give Christian perspectives. Test it against what is written in the bible, and what a person experiences in their life.»

You may be aware that Judaism considers the written bible (Torah) to only be a small portion of the whole Torah, which mostly consists of oral teachings: "Moshe (Moses) received the Torah from [Mount] Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua (Joshua), and Yehoshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly [of Rabbis]." [Pirkei Avot 1:1] http://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1?lang=bi

«Because the Scriptures in the Old Testiment point towards Jesus.»

You may be aware that this claim is highly disputed and apparently torn to shreds by Jewish scholars. It is not my place to side with either, but may I suggest the possibility that had the OT not been tampered with and had those parts which the Jewish leadership didn't like not been censored, then assuming the above is true, there would have been many more and more explicit pointers to Jesus in the OT.

Dear OzSpen,

I am aware of this Rabbinical dispute regarding the book of Job.

Whether fictional or otherwise, the point is that the Rabbis of the Talmud did not scream "Shock, Horror, kill these heretics", nor censored the opinions of those who considered Job to be fiction, nor cried "Alas, our faith is shattered, let us worship the Greek gods instead".

The Rabbis conducted a thorough, civil and rational discussion/investigation on the topic and even while a large majority of them concluded that Job was a real person and a smaller majority that his story was true as well, they did not think that it would be a problem had the bible contained some fictional (yet educational) parts.

To Yuyutsu.

This leads away from the article that Peter wrote. But the topic of truth shouldn't be about an unreachable point of enlightenment. The truth should be something to seek after for real answers and to hold a solid foundation by. In this way it is something for a practical use instead of something too grand to be able to comprehend.

I have ________ experience which opens my eyes to the situations and environment of that experience. At that point that experience can be part of my foundation for the world or for just that specific situation. At that point it doesn't matter if the experience filling in the blank is a medical procedure, or having a broken down car. It's something to learn from and to watch out for in the future so that the small things in that situation don't get over looked and trip you up. And previous misconceptions don't cloud your view. The truth is in the same way as the [fill in the blank] experience. It is something to be part of your foundation for practical use and understanding. It's not a grand scheme of the universe level of "truth" it is the solid ground (however large) you know is not lies or misunderstanding.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the Jewish scholars. They can say what they like. Scholars seem to do so and argue amongst themselves about which one is right. Based on that alone it can be noted that to trust in scholars is not a solid foundation for the truth. No, go to the matter itself. See if what they say actually makes sense and is reliable. If not, then don't count it as a foundation that you hold as true. Seeking the truth among other things means to discern what is true from what isn't. It means to investigate and choose a side of the matter that is true and accurate instead of just speculating on a debate you won't enter. Therefore truth is not a form of enlightenment, but something to seek and investigate about.

If you find something reliable to turn to, (like a child has with a parent) then that is something rare and worth holding on to. The foundation from God is like that. Reliable and true. I'll hold the words of God in the Christian and Jewish scriptures at a higher standard of reliability, then the understanding argued by scholars who've studied the material and have wild theories to argue amongst themselves about.