jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (41 posts)

believers = bible believers?

  1. pisean282311 profile image59
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    if person believes in divinity of christ but rejects bible ..do he/she can still be said as believer?

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If they are ignorance enough to believe in the divinity of Christ, but reject the bible, then they are obviously conflicted and haven't a clue. hmm

      1. Jerami profile image75
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That sounds kinda damed if ya do and damed if ya don't.

           Are you sure you are not a zelot?

      2. Al Blondin profile image59
        Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is a strange question. What Jesus would they be believing in then? Since the New Testament contains most of the historical record about that man from Nazareth, it would be strange that someone would claim to believe in him and yet not believe in the only books that relate his story.

        I sometimes hear this from people, but I don't think they have thought this trough. Seems to me that these kinds of people just want to invent a Jesus that is to their liking. If that makes them happy, more power to them. But is that really sane? If one does not like the Jesus of the New Testament, I say it is better to simply reject him as a fool or a liar. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "don't give me that damned nonsense that he was just a good teacher," he did not give us that option.

        It would be like someone saying that they believe in Ghandi but not in any historical record about him. That is just crazy!

    2. jay_kumar_07 profile image60
      jay_kumar_07posted 6 years ago

      yes

      1. pisean282311 profile image59
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yes for he is still believer without bible or he is believer because of bible?

        1. jay_kumar_07 profile image60
          jay_kumar_07posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Because of GOD

    3. kess profile image61
      kessposted 6 years ago

      The leaders of christianity can never accept those who do not believe the bible as one of themselves.

      Therefore that one will be just as an unbeliever.

      Remember all of Christianity believes the Bible to be the 'inerrant word of God' and can be found in their doctrinal statement which establishes their denomination as christian.

      Those deviate from this cannot be considered as one of their own even if they remain a partof their organisation,  they would be looked  upon as rebellious and a trouble maker.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know about this. Christianity at least from my experience (Catholic) is mostly lax with what the members believe. But fundamentalists or hardcore born again Christians tend to be a little militant.

        1. hanging out profile image59
          hanging outposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          catholic is not christian, though they claim to be BUT their doctrines are far from biblical. We are talking about jesus in this thread and few catholics raise jesus above mary. Christian is not marian it is to be christlike with the emphasis on Christ. Christ died on the cross, not mary, therefore do i say, catholic is not christian.

          1. pisean282311 profile image59
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            well but do you respect mary or not?

          2. couturepopcafe profile image61
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hanging out - with respect, Catholics are Christians.  They believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Lamb, the Word, the Light, the Son, and part of the Trinity.  One can make the argument that Baptists are not Christians because they consider Sunday to be the Sabbath, or Church of Christ not Christians because they do not allow dancing, singing or instruments.  Catholics do not revere Mary as the Saviour but as the mother of God (this in itself is a minsomer).  The amount of emphasis placed on this reverence may be off balance with the teachings of the Word but this no more discounts their Christianity than any other misinformed doctrine of any other denomination of Christianity.  You are misinformed about the doctrines of the Catholic church regarding their relationship with the Word.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              hanging out is not incorrect. Catholicism is not christian. christian means to be like christ, not mary. Mary has a back seat in much of this, mother of God yes, disciple yes, not an apostle nor a writer of gospel, certainly not the immaculate heart who give the BABY jesus away for all each christmas, rosary is not scriptural - muslims have one too. Baptism of infants and by sprinkle is not scriptural, Jesus died on the cross to save sinners and no one else is mediator, nor should be prayed to, except God and there are lots of other misnomers that interfere with a pure walk with God. Catholics do not recognize the 'saving' process of Jesus Christ. Mary worship is idolatry and heinous before God.
              If a catholic were to love Jesus with all their heart and seek jesus with honest desire, God will change their doctrine.
              People who put jesus first are the only christians, whether they be baptist, pentecostal or another. Jesus is tantamount.

              1. Al Blondin profile image59
                Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                G'day Brother. Very sorry, but I disagree with much of what you say about Catholics (I'm not really sorry, saying I'm sorry is just because it's part of being Canadian ;o).
                Everyone may be entitled to their opinions, however, it is important that this is a well informed opinion and not just prejudice and assumptions.
                It really does not matter what you think Catholics believe and what you see some Catholics do, what matters is what the official and authorized doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church are.  When discussing what Catholicism is, one must refer to the official teachings, not the actions of the followers. Followers often give their leaders a bad name, that's human nature. I'm sure you will agree that not all those who refer to themselves as "Christians" always act as Christ taught, even though they may give you the right faith formula when challenged. In the end, only God knows because the Scriptures teach that He looks at the heart, and knows our hearts. Honoring God only with one's lips, is a non-starter according to the Word.
                Therefore, if you want to speak from an authoritative source rather then just assumptions and hearsay and are serious about really knowing what the true Catholic Doctrines are, I strongly encourage you to refer to the official Cathecism of the Catholic Church. The text is available for free online, the website "Catholic Answers" has the link and also contains pretty good material to clear up misconceptions about Catholicism.
                I worshipped in various Evangelical Protestant Christian churches for many years, so I know where you are coming from. After reading the Cathecism of the Catholic Church during my university studies, I became amazed at all the misconceptions I had. Check it out, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm you have nothing to lose and at the very least, you will gain a legitimate understanding of the  doctrines of official Catholicism and can write from knowledge rather than prejudice. Here is an example from the Cathecism about Jesus, Merit and Grace: "The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men.
                As you can clearly see, according to the official teachings of Catholicism, it is only by God's grace through Jesus that people can be saved. This is repeated throughout the Cathecism. It also give a pretty darn good interpretation about what is meant by Grace, Merit and Works. I cannot think of anyone among Protestant Christian Evangelicals who would disagree with much of what is contained about salvation and grace in the Cathecism.
                One may disagree with some of the practices of Catholics and some of the minor teachings of the Church, but overall, on the most important subjects, I really believe that there is a lot more unity of teachings among the essential beliefs of Christianity than disagreements. Many of the disagreements are actually really petty. As for Baptism, and many of the "Sacraments", there is so much disagrements about formulas and methods even among who you would call your Christian Brethren, that it would take a whole book to explain. What matters in the end is what happens in the heart though. So I would give people the benefit of doubt on that one since that is God's prerogative, not ours, His creatures.

      2. Jerami profile image75
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yet  that is true ...   want to see my "T" shirt ?

    4. Disappearinghead profile image87
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago

      One can be a believer whilst not believing the dodgy English translations or the vain interpretations that vomit into your living room from God telly.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True true. I mean, why do you even classify people as believers and non-believers. Seriously. There are many different ways to engage religion. Some have fervent questioning attitude about religion but it doesn't make them any less engaged.  I find that those who question actually are more involved in it than those who say, yeah we agree to disagree. There is no investment. The doubters are more invested in what it means.

        So I say, those who are looking to believe are more ernest in their interest than those who say they believe but do not really think about what they actually believe.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          cecilia - your point regarding seekers is valid.  The term 'believer' simply means you are one who believes Jesus is the Messiah and according to the Bible's mandate, have openly spoken this.  Those who are seekers are surely invested but this does not make them believers in the Christian sense of the word.  I agree with you that there are different ways to engage religion but on this point of 'believers', the Christians coined the term as such.  I would hazard a guess that people who go through the study and (in some denominations) the baptism have done their thinking.  A problem with society is that Christians are too often seen as sheep (not in the Biblical sense) who cannot think for themselves, often uneducated, low wage earners, etc.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with religion, the truth is that many religious people do their homework, are educated, kind, clean, considerate, and live the teachings of their chosen religion, contrary to the 'sqeaky wheel' which makes a bad name for everyone else.

      2. pisean282311 profile image59
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @disappearing i read that there are more than thousands of changed verses in bible from oldest one...is it true?

        1. Disappearinghead profile image87
          Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There are several dodgy transalations out there that tell you in their prefaces that some Greek or Hebrew sayings don't make much sense in English. What they then do is give you a translation that "expresses the menaing of what the writer is saying". This can only lead to dodgy doctrine ideas as you are now being told what the saying means. I've now resorted to literal transalations that take the Greek or Hebrew word for word, then I can make up my own mind.

          As to whether the original texts have been changed, Id say no as it was never in the church's interest to do this. Besides which tampering with the bible has always been considered a no no.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image61
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            With respect, Disappearinghead, I think you are wrong on this.  It was in the total interest of the church at one time to alter translations to suit the power of the pulpit.  I can't say with authority who, what or where but history tells us that the church had dominion over the people for a very long time and corruption was profitable.

    5. hanging out profile image59
      hanging outposted 6 years ago

      NO.

      1. Druid Dude profile image59
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If you believe, if you continue to search, you will discover that the scriptures are written inside of you. You stand a better chance of finding it without even a church, for it is written: The church is the Temple. Where is your Temple?

    6. Jaggedfrost profile image84
      Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

      I almost felt bad about flagging this account... almost.

      1. pisean282311 profile image59
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        which account you are talking about jagged?

    7. Jaggedfrost profile image84
      Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

      How do you come to a knowledge that Jesus is the Christ without that belief or knowledge being founded somewhere in scripture?   How can you call yourself a Christian and yet forswear you belief in the record?  It isn't sound.   I may not be one who likes people to quote the bible at me because most of them cant reconcile the old and new testament records with each other and I can. 

      Most argue that half of the things that are mentioned about commandments and performances don't apply to them and therefore were frivolous waists of space.  I refuse to believe that.   

      I think that if you cannot reconcile yourself to the fact that the complete record and honestly seek out the mysteries where they exist using every bit of evidence and inspiration you can bring to understand the God that the scriptures point to you are a pagan.  Your belief is based on something that you can understand rather then risk a mystery and seek a greater being on His terms. 

      Even as I call him Father, I know what it is I am talking about.  The atheists are people who would rather not believe and be cynical, wallowing in their own humanity then believe that change is possible.

      As for the other world religions.  To you I say I am sorry.  I am sorry that there aren't any nice ways to tell you that the roots of your faith are what you aught to seek.  Sorry that my belief and knowledge must of a certainty challenge yours.  Sorry that that puts this bit of writing at odds with you and your foundations.  Sorry that it doesn't matter and I cannot change how I feel because of how much I regret that fact.

    8. thirdmillenium profile image61
      thirdmilleniumposted 6 years ago

      How can you reconcile this question with reality? It is Bible that we know anything about Christ by, isn't it?

      1. pisean282311 profile image59
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        why?..there are many people who believe that bible is not what original doc it was ...some say there are errors in thousands...so they reject it but believe in christ...

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          To reject the bible is to reject God promise that the word will always lead to God. Yes there has been tamperings, recently the NIV is abomination and the king james has some catholic tweaks to make it line up somewhat with mainstream catholic fear doctrines, like satan and hell, fallen angels, torment forever. The pope dresses like an elaborate KKK member and preaches heresies continually. His new condom declaration is not biblical it is ecumenical which is another heresy. The Holy See has placed themselves above the word of God and KEPT the word of God from the people from Christ until Luther which is not scriptural to do.
          Jesus says he is the way the truth the light and none can come to the father BUT by HIM. Where will you find this if one does not read or trust the word of god.

          1. Al Blondin profile image59
            Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Wow!  Brother, your views of Christianity are very interesting. But they are so narrow that, based on what you are saying, I would need to disregard all that i have learned and just take your word for it that you are right. I have studied the Scriptures on my own for over 20 years (I even went back to the orignial Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts) and I disagree with many of your interpretations. You appear to be extremely confident on what the proper interpretation of the Bible is and the practices of the churches throughout history. I'm sorry to have to say this but, if I were you, I'd be careful, you are sounding extremely arrogant. Are you sure your heart is in the right place? Is the Spirit of Christ really your guide or is it simply the proud spirit of Brotheryochanan. I perceive that in your rants you are spitting venom rather than Christ's Love my brother. In the end, it is not your take on the Bible that matters, or a book collected and bound by human hands but the True WORD made flesh, Christ, the Real WORD of God. He was murdered on a Roman cross but, last I heard, He is still around, through the Holy Spirit, nearer than your own heartbeat. Who are you really listening to?
            Your brother Al

        2. Al Blondin profile image59
          Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ok,

          I don't agree with you when it comes to the accuracy of the New Testament content, but, let's give your take on the accuracy of Scripture the benefit of doubt.

          If the New Testament is not to be trusted about the facts of Jesus' life, and since they do contain almost exlusively everything significant that has ever been recorded about Jesus, then, saying anything about Jesus is just silly since we have nothing to base ourselves upon. Might just as well be having a discussions about the merit of believing in the Tooth Fairy. It is a non-starter!

          If that is the case, why on earth would anyone want to believe in someone that we supposedly have no reliable information about?

          Just sayin' is all... but what do I know, I am just a silly Canadian that likes to talk and write about Jesus... ;o)

    9. Jaggedfrost profile image84
      Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

      pisean, there was a spammer who posted before me.

    10. Jaggedfrost profile image84
      Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

      errors be damned, if there is a God who spoke behind it originally then you can ask him to help you see past the errors of men.  My stand is as it is before.

    11. Andme26 profile image53
      Andme26posted 6 years ago

      if person believes in divinity of christ but rejects bible ..do he/she can still be said as believer?

      if you believe in something/someone you are a believer.!! right or wrong open for discussion but you are a believer

    12. Jerami profile image75
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      Al Blondin wrote 
         That is a strange question. What Jesus would they be believing in then? Since the New Testament contains most of the historical record about that man from Nazareth, it would be strange that someone would claim to believe in him and yet not believe in the only books that relate his story.
      - - - - - -

      ME
         What is even stranger is that people say that they believe the bible, and believe in Jesus and yet do not believe what he said in that bible.

        Jesus was very clear concerning his second coming and that part is completely disregarded.
         And this is at the center of Christian doctrine.

      1. Al Blondin profile image59
        Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jerami,

        I agree with you that some of those who claim to believe are very inconsistent and often downright hypocritical.

        I'm a student of Scripture, and I also agree that the Second Coming is part of the centre of Christian Doctrine. But I disagree with your statement that it is completely disregarded and how clear those teachings are.

        It is clear that we are to watch for it and be ready but Jesus himself told us to not waste time trying to work out the details, his point was simply for us to be ready for his arrival. His point is that we are to continue to do what needs to be done (reaching out to a lost world) and keep our hearts pure. It is easy to get mired in the excitement of prophecy because the apocalyptic language is very interesting but we need to pay attention to what the Master's point was. Be ready!

    13. Jerami profile image75
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      It just seems irrefutably clear that Jesus said that he was coming back in that generation; that he was walking among and teaching to.
         And that his sermon on the Mt. as described in Matt. 24 wasn't a sermon at all, but just a private conversation where Jesus was telling Peter, James and John and Andrew of things that   THEY   were going to see before he does come again.
       
        That no one knows the day or hour but THAT generation shall not pass till these things be fulfilled.

         It is my opinion that if these were to be accepted as fact.
      Exactly as they are written, without any interpretations being inflicted upon them; The mystery of the rest of prophesy will be lifted.
         I feel that this is at the center of all misunderstanding concerning scripture. 
         (I guess that is just my opinion)

      1. Al Blondin profile image59
        Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jerami,

        I applaud you spirit. Wanting to follow the Scriptures as closely as possible is a noble endeavour.

        I have been working in communications for a long time, and this experience has taught me that there is no such thing as communication without interpretation. When you read the Bible in English, you are already dealing with interpretation since it was written originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. One of my tasks in my job is to write translations, and no matter how you cut it, one has to interpret in order to translate. That is a fact. Even when you read something in your own language, it is almost impossible to not interpret because everything we experience in life ends up being measured in our minds agains our own experience. So there is always interpretation. That is why I am not convinced that private interpretation of the Scripture is the way to go. I have a degree in Theology, and I was trained to read the New Testament in the original Greek. Even with the training I have, I do not claim to know for sure what the Bible appears to say sometimes. It was written in very different styles by very different people in 66 different books between 2 and 3 thousand years ago and the original audience was very different from the people trying to understand it today. So it is not so simple as it appears. In regards to your topic, here are a few important verses to refer to. In the beginning of the Book of Acts, the author states what Jesus said before being taken up to heaven, “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
        So, the important directive here is to be witnesses of the teachings of Christ to everyone, the same kind of directive is given at the end of the Book of Matthew where Jesus is saying that all authority is contained in him, yet he sends out his people, not a book, to go save the world. The Book is very important but it is not the book that contains all the Truth, it is the Spirit of Christ that was transmitted to His Apostles. And the main message is that all people can be reconciled to God through Christ. That is the message of hope, The Good News.

        1. Jerami profile image75
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with all that you have said in this post.

            We can not help but to influence translation of scripture unprejudiced by our preconceived ideas as to what is being translated.

             My point precisely.
             Now suppose that the futurists view of prophesy is used when translating the scripture from their original language we come out with a totally different translation than when we translate them with a preconceived thoughts based in the Historicist views.

             In my view ...  there are many indicators written in the futurists translation of scripture that are point to the historicist camp.
             These are easiest found in the words  Christ is said to have spoken.

             Such as ... No one knows the day or hour  but  This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled

          and ...   some of you standing here shall not taste of death till YOU have seen the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven sitting at the right hand of POWER, coming in his kingdom.

              I am just baffled that no one else seems to see this as an indication that the second coming might have happened exactly as he said that he would.
              And if it did ? we would have to rethink all of our interpretations that we are holding onto.

             I admit that I hold a historicist view but not based upon the reasons that are commonly understood by other historicist.

              I would just like people to consider the possibility of having been misinformed. 

             For is the second did in fact already happen, the Catholicism would have to be the beast as described in Rev. 13.

             Now this is purely my interpretation ...  this would mean that religiosity, churcheousity is that organization that rises to power and is given 42 months to blaspheme the Lord.

             Fortunately , it is written that God sends his two witnesses down to earth for approx this same length of time.
          I think that they inflate this organized system.
          To do the will of God.

             The end of this 42 months is upon us, even at the door.

            Just my opinion.

          1. Al Blondin profile image59
            Al Blondinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is a interesting view Jerami, and from your last post, I surmise that you "have been around" the Scriptures for awhile.

            Here is my view. Since the Bible is made up of 66 seperate books that are accepted by practically all denominations in Christendom, and there are passages that do conflict such as whether Bartimaeus was healed by Jesus on the way to Cana or as He was leaving Cana, it is important to not take any part of the Bible in isolation but to look at the synthesis of the messages.

            Another legitimate way to interpret Scriptures is to compare what happened in the narrative of the Gospels with Paul's teachings in his Epistles. Since Paul was right there in the midst of it, and is credited with the overwhelming majority of the content of the New Testament, his teachings regarding topics such as eschatology are vitally important.

            As I'm sure you know already, there should be a big difference between how we approach narrative and didactic elements in Scriptures. Narrative simply relates what happened and does not necessarily serve as a basis for us to emulate, while didactic content such as Paul's letters are meant to teach the audience directly. I try my best to avoid speculation about what can be interpreted different ways, I leave that to the experts.

            What is most important to me is the heart of Christ's Message, His vision for our reconciliation to the Father, His examples for how we should treat one another and His incredible sacrifice to bring all His children into the Kingdom of God. Those teachings are pretty clear, and, to me, they supercede the teachings about the "last things", or eschatology. Especially if those teachings lead to division and judgemental attitudes among the brethren.

            In the end, I sincerely believe, He will look at our hearts, not what camp we belong to. Whether we are a-millennialists, pre-milleniallists or post-millenialists, Protestants, Catholics or Orthodox, I don't believe he really cares. He does care that we Love God and Love one another though, of that I am certain.

            In terms of what Jesus said himself, there is a theme that runs throughout his teachings. Theologians refer to it as the "now and not yet principle." For example, when Jesus spoke to the Kingdom of God, He said in some passages that the Kingdom is already among us, yet in others, he clearly refers to the Kingdom that is yet to come. If one reads through every statement that Jesus made, one is often confronted with this apparent dichotomy. It appears that he was likely speaking to two audiences, his immediate historical followers, and those who will beleive as a result of their work in the future. This principle can be helpful in order to better understand what He meant.

    14. Jerami profile image75
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      Most excellent post !!
        And thanks for the compliment  and back atcha
      ===============
      Al Blondin wrote
      ...and there are passages that do conflict such as whether Bartimaeus was healed by Jesus on the way to Cana or as He was leaving Cana, it is important to not take any part of the Bible in isolation but to look at the synthesis of the messages.
      - - - - -
      ME
        I agree completely "to look at the synthesis of the messages".
        To do otherwise would be like ...
             After hearing two witnesses tell their story as to what color the car was that ran over the pedestrian, If their stories do not agree we should not surmise that no one ran over the pedestrian, therefore it must all be a lie. The little boy is faking his blood broken leg.  (NOT)
      =======================================
      Al Blondin
        Another legitimate way to interpret Scriptures is to compare what happened in the narrative of the Gospels with Paul's teachings in his Epistles. Since Paul was right there in the midst of it, and is credited with the overwhelming majority of the content of the New Testament, his teachings regarding topics such as eschatology are vitally important.

      As I'm sure you know already, there should be a big difference between how we approach narrative and didactic elements in Scriptures. Narrative simply relates what happened and does not necessarily serve as a basis for us to emulate, while didactic content such as Paul's letters are meant to teach the audience directly. I try my best to avoid speculation about what can be interpreted different ways, I leave that to the experts.
      - - - - - -

      ME ...  I have a very similar approach.   I have my seventh grade teacher to thank for.
         She told me that I was paying way too much attention to too many of the little details and not recognizing which facts were going to be ask on the test.
         Basically saying that I was spending much time remembering things like, what color the door was on Columbus' cabin door.
      ================================================
      Al Blondin wrote
      What is most important to me is the heart of Christ's Message, His vision for our reconciliation to the Father, His examples for how we should treat one another and His incredible sacrifice to bring all His children into the Kingdom of God. Those teachings are pretty clear, and, to me, they supercede the teachings about the "last things", or eschatology. Especially if those teachings lead to division and judgemental attitudes among the brethren.
      - - - -   

      ME  ... Though I agree completely with this statement;
      IF ?   we could find the cause of ALL of these discrepancies??
      it would be a good thing to expose it.

      =================================================
      Al Blondin
        In the end, I sincerely believe, He will look at our hearts, not what camp we belong to.
         I don't believe he really cares. He does care that we Love God and Love one another though, of that I am certain.
      - - - - - - - -
      ME       Again I agree ...   
      =======================================

      Al Blondin
      For example, when Jesus spoke to the Kingdom of God, He said in some passages that the Kingdom is already among us, yet in others, he clearly refers to the Kingdom that is yet to come. If one reads through every statement that Jesus made, one is often confronted with this apparent dichotomy. It appears that he was likely speaking to two audiences, his immediate historical followers, and those who will believe as a result of their work in the future. This principle can be helpful in order to better understand what He meant.
      - - - - - 
      ME
        I think that your explanation would answer some of them and again translation also has something to do with these smaller discrepancies.
         These I do not worry about too much. They fall into the category with the color of Columbus' cabin door.

         ????
        I think that it is a very important issue as to whether we camp with the Preterits, Historicist, Futurist, or Spiritualist.

        Our salvation may not be affected regardless of our stance on this issue; 
        But it sure makes a difference in our understanding of the prophesy. If we find them important?

         Whichever of these four camps mentioned above, that we find ourselves in certainly would have GREAT influence as to how the original writings would have been translated.


        My thoughts anyway as I am waking up , drink my morning coffee

     
    working