Is Jesus God? Or the most illuminated prophet of all times?
KW: Jesus, Christianity, Catholic Church, Christ, Buda, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Gospel of John, Gospel of Thomas, Nicene Council,
Description: The article discusses the controversy about Jesus being God or an illuminated Rabbi, a hot issue in the initial centuries after Jesus death.
Is Jesus a God?
When I was seven, being prepared for First Communion, I had a discussion with the priest. I couldn't agree with him that a baby dying in the midst of Africa, without any access to Christianity, could not go to heaven.
"Whoever is not baptized cannot go to heaven," said the priest in a matter-of-fact tone, but I could not agree with such injustice.
Presently, the Catholic Church admits that a person can be saved, even if he didn't know Christ, through Christ. There is a minority current inside the Church that thinks this requisite - through Christ - is not a necessary condition. A Buddhist could go to heaven through Buda.
In fact, the issue hinges on believing or not that Jesus was God. Let's see how the subject was treated at the initial centuries after Christ.
The three synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - never stated clearly that Jesus was God. They called Him Messiah and Son of God. Messiah, meaning anointed, and Son of God were epithets given to the kings of Israel. In fact, many of Jesus followers expected Him to be the king that would liberate the Jewish people from the Roman dominance.
Only the Gospel of John says that Jesus is God. Contrary to this position, the Gospel of Thomas, one of the documents found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945, containing 114 sayings of Jesus explicitly says:
Saying 108
Jesus says: "Whoever will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself will become he and what is hidden will be revealed to him."
Evidently, since we are not going to turn into gods, we have to understand that we can become illuminated. That is what Jesus was, an illuminated Rabbi, the most illuminated human being that lived on Earth.
Illuminated human beings exist around the world. We don't know all because they don't go around proclaiming their condition. But we can mention Buda, several Christian saints (not all), some Buddhist and Indian monks, and many others we never heard of spread around the world.
The Catholic Church requires, for our salvation that we believe in the Catholic Creed that claims Jesus was born from a virgin and resurrected in body, not in spirit.
Rather than believing this and other dogmas, we should strive to follow Jesus teachings. The Catholic Church claims infallibility for the Popes. Is that true?
Did ever Jesus said that women are inferior beings that cannot officiate like priests? Is the Christian religions, whatever denomination, true to Jesus, or fabrications of later followers?
The New Testament was written many years after Jesus death. The teachings were originally transmitted orally, and written years later. The copies that survived are not the original ones. Did you know that some of the copyists of the early years did not know how to read? That they copied the drawings of the letters? This may have caused many involuntary mistakes.
Worse, the study of the Bible shows that some parts of the Bible were voluntary introductions to prove a point. Bart Ehrman, PhD, in theology by Princeton University and author of several books about the Bible, shows, based on linguistic studies, that the Gospel of Mark stops at verses 16: 8 and that 16: 9 thru 20, that mentions the visit of the resurrected Jesus to his disciples was introduced by a later copyist. This was not an involuntary error but had implications for discussions of Jesus being a God or not, one of the topics of the Nicene Council in 425 A.D.
Some say that, if Jesus were to come back today, most of the Christian denominations would not accept Him, would call him a fraud. After all, His preaching is so different from what the churches practice that it would be impossible to have Him accepted.
Back to the question that serves as title to the article: Is Jesus a God? We presented the Church position, and some contrary arguments but, to tell the truth, this issue is not important.
In my humble opinion, the important issue is not Jesus being God or an illuminated prophet. If humanity would follow, even partially, His teachings, we would have a much better world today. We might be living in a Garden of Eden.
I am Roberto Lima Netto, and I believe that our objective in life is to be happy and that Spirituality and Jungian psychology, my main areas of interest, can help us in this search for happiness. I am a writer. Some of my books are "The Little Prince for Grown-ups", "The Jungian Bible", "The Amazon Shaman" and "In Search of Happiness".The issue is actually of much importance.
Yes, Jesus is God.
And no, John is not the only book that says Jesus is God.
I'll try to post the references soon.
You have posted so much stuff that I disagree with that it could take me a while to debate with ya. ha. And I dunno if I'm up for a long conversation.
But wanted to let you know that you've missed some facts for sure.In the Book of Hebrews Chapter 1, God in His description of Jesus calls Him....Lord and God. Therefore, in the words of our heavenly Father: Jesus is both God and Lord! Be blessed!
Gospel of thomas says:
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her
male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven."
Do these sound like words of Jesus? No they do not. A gnostic writing and most likely psuedepigrapha, wikipedia has some interesting things to say about this supposed gospel.
The copyists... were producing copies.. not rewrites. To say that these copies were not seriously revered is to deny that they were important documents written by important people. There was no discussion about who wrote what to the church in those days. 30 yrs is not a long time.. 300 yrs until alexander the greats bio was written. The reason the books were not written earlier is everyone thought the kingdom of God was at hand, near.. soon.. so why write about something that could be over before it was finished. Book writing was not done by printing press and was rather expensive.
Also we need to take into account that like any good student notes were made. Also when Jesus spoke, people listened i imagine that many of what Jesus said was not forgotten amongst the disciples.
Johns Gospel is different because 3 witnesses were confirmed; matthew, mark, luke and johns confirmation was not needed, so he wrote differently. Matthew mark and luke are written to different audiences. Mathew a jew, like the historical aspects, mark a roman gentile appreciates the facts and luke wrote to an individual person as stated in his opening statements. So hence the different audiences, different slants. John writes to all jews and furthers their education by declaring what paul says and what can be found in the other gospels - Jesus deity. God in a blood, bone and flesh body.
Further, it was not important that Jesus be God that would just have created outrage to Matthews audience, jews. Matthew shows that Jesus is the annointed one they expected, prophesied about in the OT. Mark doesn't tell the greeks this either because as much as greeks like facts their is wisdom in not giving your audience more than they can digest. Luke being last, needs to keep his testimony as the third witness in line with the rest, although he offers a chronological gospel.
As to add ons and such.. matthew 28:19 is probably an addon this is why i say as i do about other manipulations of the NT by catholics that we need to be very careful when dealing with the NT. Jesus foresaw this and included in his parable about lazarus:
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
To keep doctrine straight we need to marry or adjust our definitions of words (due to hellenization) in the NT to match the doctrines of the OT.
Is the bible reliable.. absolutely.. much study is needed though.
Is the NT altered, just read the NIV version lol.Roberto, What interesting conversation!
I would like to inquire...Jesus was as an epitome of a human who became the grandest version of the greatest vision he held of his Self...his Soul Self/God Self...yes? Why would any other one imagine less of their Selfs, if given such a mirror to See with?
Is it easier to be slave to a book & it's authors, as well as the societies created of it, rather than take on the unconditional reason & attributes of the messages..."I send you nothing but Angels"..."Love is Unconditional".
Humans have difficulty with Seeing themselves, let alone their Selfs, in a mirror...perhaps, they simply do not know that what is seen as undesirable or intolerable...what is seen as wonderous & Amazing, is what they should be Seeing in themselves...That our environment, peoples included, is reflective of Who & What we, & We, are being, and yes, creating. Hmmm...???
Perhaps it is the perception of Who & What God/Goddess IS that stirred, & still stirs, confusion of such matters. It is my knowing that there is no one and no thing and no space that is not part & parcel of Creation & Creator...All is One. Children come with this knowing, but are stifled from expressing this from the get go...perhaps someone, somewhere, discovered the uncontrollable power of such & were in fear of being uncontrolling? And the follow-suit thing of conditioned perception remains.
I was gifted a quote a long time ago: "Freedom is the grandest gift of Love, and Love always (and all ways) seeks to give the grandest gift."
Blessed be, Roberto...and Good Journey. <3I did not read this whole lengthy post. I do not know why people repeatedly try to make this argument. Is it that they think it will be less offensive to a Christian to say Jesus was a good prophet? I do not believe Jesus as the "most luminated prophet of all time" is even a viable option. He was either who He said He was and is or He was a lying, mentally ill lunatic. It is one or the other. The only way to arrive at the "Jesus was a good prophet" theory is to completely ignore what He said about Himself.
New International Bible
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;
Roman 14:9
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.
Matthews 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."- Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
0I do agree with you, Robert, that a baby will go to heaven. Being baptized into the Catholic Church has nothing to do with a baby's salvation.
Here are some verses that tell us Jesus is God. This fact is stated in both Old and New Testaments.-----
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:1 and 1: 14)
And I defy your "gospel of Thomas" as you mentioned before, because it isn't Biblical.
The Holy Bible tells us when Thomas realized that Jesus was God.
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, 'My Lord and my God.'"
(John 20: 28) Brenda:
I know it is difficult to discuss religious issues, because emotion plays a crucial role. Anyway, let me point that we have no originals of the Canonical Gospels. The earliest copies came from the fourth century. There were many involuntary mistakes because the copyists were mostly illiterate, and copied each letter. But there were also purposeful changes, to prove points under discussion in the initial centuries, including this issue of Jesus being God or an illuminated prophet.
There ate several books, written by Bible scholars that prove this point. If you are interested in getting more information, I suggest you read a book by Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus.
Don't forget that the Bible was written by human beings. Even granting divine inspiration, the writing came from human hands. If you believe that the world was created in six days (Genesis) I have nothing to tell you. If you consider the Bible a beautiful book to be read metaphorically, we are in the same wave length. In fact, I wrote a book - The Jungian Bible - giving a Jungian interpretation to some Old Testament Biblical stories.
Roberto
www.HappinessAcademyOnline.orgThere were many involuntary mistakes because the copyists were mostly illiterate, and copied each letter.
Since when does one have to be literate to copy a picture or a letter? Find someone illiterate, put the alphabet in front of them and ask them to copy it...
'Purposeful changes' came later on during the council of nicea, 425bc. BUT the core of christian beliefs was not changed. There is still repentance, sin, resurrection etc. Hell is inserted for grave by Catholic bishops before their presentation to henry and satan is introduced in both old and new testaments but this only amounts to a small amount of changes, which the interlinear and greek definitions we have access to today can account for. There is a great degree of accuracy from these Copies of Copies.. not rewrites, copies. Copies that any illiterate can do and probably better than a literate person who would be tempted to read whole sentences and then write whole sentences from memory.. instead of looking at each letter and tracing its design, millimeter by millimeter. We are talking about copies here, not translations.
If you don't believe the world was created in 6 days. how about the word days is actually aeons.. ages.. and can be translated as days as well..
IF days how about this one.
Moses went up a mountain sat with God and God showed him visions of chapter one IN A DAY, after writing what he saw and heard, he slept. Then on day 2 moses recieved another vision and wrote what he saw... and God showed him the garden events on day 3.
It seems i have something to tell you. On the 7th day God rested and so did Moses.
Bart ehrman.. debunked so often i wish i had bet a knickel for every incident.Lets not forget that there are over 56,000 greek documents alone for the NT and there are many more in other languages.. german, coptic etc. Such a vast amount of documentation that we could make the entire new testament without using the greek manuscripts. The NT is documented better than any other ancient material. It surpasses all others by thousands.
- Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago0
Amen to brotheryochanan's deft answers,
and Roberto, indeed we are on different wavelengths. I surely do believe Genesis.And Amen that no divorces will be going to hell instead of heaven for commiting adultery as claimed by some idiot called mathew 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"
You attempt to apply sarcasm as though it illustrates a relevance and/or a truth. In the case of this particular discussion, it does neither.
It does though you make yourself blind not to see it. If Jesus stand on divorce is wrong then neither he a god nor an' illuminated prophet', but another charlatan who try to get political mileage just like a mullah.
If he is right then you have no right to comment about Jesus till you correct yourself and become 'undivorced'.I didn't say Jesus's stance on divorce was wrong.
I said your attempt at sarcasm illustrated nothing relevant.
For one thing, you said something about divorce being criteria for going to heaven or hell. You conveniently left out the major factor about divorce (the major factor about ALL sin ((and sometimes divorce isn't even a sin))............and that factor is forgiveness from the Lord.
And indeed I have a right to comment about anything and everything, in case you didn't know. Well, now you do know.
What you personally do not have a right to do is to escalate your personal assessment of me into harrassment. I do hope you don't continue down that road.You have the right to comment but that will be just your opinion. According to what Jesus said you are doing a sin and unless you correct it you have no MORAL right and is a sinner.
And incidently I saw a person who said the same thing as you said except that he was a murderer. All sinners do the opposite of what Jesus asked and justify themselves saying Jesus will forgive because they are unique and dear to god(hence exempted) while others are just sinners.I dunno where you get your ideas about what all sinners do or don't do, but I've never known anyone to use God's forgiveness for themselves only. Christians know that ALL sinners can be forgiven. All they gotta do is repent and ask for forgiveness. You seem to have the wrong idea about what a sinner is and what Christianity even is..........
Continue doing what is wrong and not correcting it is not repentence. Jesus words are very clear "no fornication no divorce" or divorcing for a reason other than fornication is committing the sin of adultery. And it is there in the bible Mathew 19:9
You sound vaguely (well, clearly really) like another poster or former poster who used to seem to have some sort of fixation on the divorce issue, particularly with me personally. Perhaps you're not the same person. But I'm in no mood to continue this line of discussion since you seem to want to ignore the issue of forgiveness, and you seem to assume that fornication wasn't a valid reason anyway. I will tell you this, as I've told others--------divorce is somethilng that one spouse doesn't always have a choice in. Many other sins, however, including homosexuality, are wide open to personal individual choice.
By the way, since you like pointing out Scripture passages, I can give you many that speak to the subject of forgiveness. One of them is John 3: 16. Would you like more? But indeed I'm sure you're capable of looking them up for yourself, if you're really interested in what the Bible says about life and sin and forgiveness and salvation etc.I would like to get the verse which say that a person who did a sin and continue to be in that sin is forgiven.
Homosexuality is an individual choice? This is just what I told, my sin is ok others is the problem.
If you think homosexuality is a choice imagine for a second that you are doing it, can you?
I cannot, I will throw up. It is constitutional, and an individual cannot change his or her sexual orientation.You are still to provide me with the verse that says divorce is allowed for any reason other than fornication and where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.
I read the gospels again and couldn't find where Jesus say homosexuality is a sin but I found this, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."and "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye".homosexuality goes way back to God creating man and woman. The purpose of this is obvious and therefore i won't go into details. God obviously made man and woman for each other.
With the adultery thing.. You left out the example of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus said "Go and sin no more". The going and sinning no more means to stop doing that. Since the woman (and we will suppose this is not a trap set by the pharisees) was caught in adultery and since Jesus said Go and sin no more speaks of forgiveness. If she continues to sin in adultery, the writere of Hebrews says, and i agree:
"Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins", and this is a point of christianity, changing habits, changing lifestyle, changing ways. In the OT under the law there was immediate penalty because that is the function of law... to punish wrong doers and thereby discourage further wrongdoing. It is the same in our society today, we live under mans laws. Since Jesus and the inclusion of the Gentile nations there is mercy. For further example: OT .. la la la la, oh what a beautiful day, gathers wood on a sunday = death. NT la la la, oh what a beautiful day, gathers wood on a sunday.. lives to correct that error.
It is my considered observation that God will judge us for the state our spiritual lives at the last day of our lives, which is to say, we have the entirety of our lives to shape our lives to conform to, shall we say, christian standards. God will not judge us for what we did on dec 2013 if we die on dec 2025. We will be judged according to how our lives measured up on dec 2025.No i think you did.
These one liners are boring, can you take a few more minutes to elaborate please.I asked for the verse which says divorce for reasons other than fornication is not a sin or a person who divorced for other reasons will be forgiven if the person remain divorced knowing it as a sin.
I also want the specific verse where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.
While you are at it give me the quote (by Jesus) where he condemns making ones fellow human a slave.
I asked for the verse which says divorce for reasons other than fornication is not a sin or a person who divorced for other reasons will be forgiven if the person remain divorced knowing it as a sin.
I will examine the word fornication or the act of f-----g. Recall that we are speaking to the jews, and the jews as did the hebrew people have a special regard for hymen. Yes that useless veil of the holy of holies of the woman. Enjoy that sentence The hymen breaks and lo and behold blood comes forth. Now what do we get, biblically, when it comes to the shedding of blood. Yep, a blood covenant and this is what is referred to when fornication is mentioned. Fornication as we have been taught is random general sexual activity. But to have fornicated to the jews means no breaking of hymen and no blood covenant with the wife and therefore divorce proceedings occur. Now to us gentiles who have no regard for hymen or blood covenants we just simply do not perceive this as important. To God this may be very important but during this dispensation of grace, forgiveness is extended to the believer. Does this mean we need to find the person whose hymen we broke and marry her? NO. She may already be married, not wanting christianity nor caring for our rules that we cannot enforce upon another. If one did marry the person of whom a blood covenant had occurred and did not stay married to her, is this sin unforgivable.. Jesus did not say that.. there is only one unforgivable sin and we know what that is. IF you need me to define this unforgivable sin, i will but for now i will defer to explain, suffice it to say, the grace of God is extended even to the breaking of hymen. Thankyou Lord.
I also want the specific verse where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.
Already covered.
While you are at it give me the quote (by Jesus) where he condemns making ones fellow human a slave.
Previously i have been all over this debate about slaves in the bible so i will just briefly expound. Slaves in the OT were treated very well, in fact the word servant is a definition of the word slave and servant is used in many other versions in place of slave. Servants could choose to remain to their master/ employer (because they were given wages, housing, foods etc), willingly and an earring (for all you earring wearers out there, here is the root of your symbolic ear adornment) was placed through the ear of the servant - an open declaration that that persons employer was a good honest and fair man who treated his servants well. Kudos for the employer. Servants, every jubilee year, were set free and debts erased - a practice no other nation offered their servants or their slaves. Slavery to the egyptians was servantry in a negative sense while servantry in hebraic attitude was nothing like egyptian slavery. God and Gods people treated the strangers (gentiles) in theirr land with proper decorum. Of course there were some employers and even some servants who were not so inclined to be good toward the other and so laws were made to keep those bad employers and bad servants in line.New International Version (©1984)I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.):And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So that you will understand what is spoken.
So tell me the verse where jesus says divorcing and remaining divorced for reasons other that adultery is fine.
And tell me where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.
Yeah, Slaves were treated just like sons to be stoned or slapped with rod..
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21: 20-21
But I didn't ask what OT say about slaves, I asked where , or in which verse jesus condemns slavery or say one should not keep his fellow being as a slave.
New International Version (©1984)I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9
Yawn.. the N(ot) I(nspired) V(ersion) of the bible is full of interpreted words but not interpreted Hebraicly or jewishly. I said what i said earlier that we have been taught etc.. and the niv clearly states that, but i also said that to the Hebraic and Jewish people the hymen is important, but you seemed to have missed that part and just decided that the NIv translation is what you will go by. Whatever. There is a jewish side to it all.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.):And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
exactly my point.. reread my post only slower this time.. get a book about jewish or hebraic marriage customs and learn something new.
So that you will understand what is spoken.
So tell me the verse where jesus says divorcing and remaining divorced for reasons other that adultery is fine.
The woman committing adultery shows forgiveness about adultery but you seemed to have missed this point also. IF there is forgiveness about the woman breaking a 10 commandments rule then use your head to figure your quandary out. There is only one unforgivable sin.... why am i repeating myself to you again... and again....
And tell me where Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.
this is me repeating myself again
Yeah, Slaves were treated just like sons to be stoned or slapped with rod..
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21: 20-21
But I didn't ask what OT say about slaves, I asked where , or in which verse jesus condemns slavery or say one should not keep his fellow being as a slave.
Of course you work on the premise that all slaves (those sold into servitude to pay off a debt were all very good slaves who had no alterior motive than to please their masters. You of course think that all slaves are happy go lucky creatures jumping around in fields and why would one ever have to or want to beat them. This is not the case, all people are different. Some slaves come from foreign countries as vassals of war. Although God commanded all slaves and servants to be treated well, there were bound to be some of those that did not want to serve they wanted something else, but be that as it may, God said, as he says about children, discipline them, correct them but never kill them.
As to what Jesus says about condemning slavery, the whole roman empire was about slaves, every rich person had one or delegates had emissaries or maids and butlers, serving persons abounded. IT was the roman way of life providing employment for many. Jesus said, follow me and i will make you fishers of men. Love your neighbor as yourself. IF you have maid servants and man servants be really nice to them.
If you believe Genesis is a literal account, then God made man and woman for each other. However, no thinking person can deny that a significant portion of the human population is wired to sexually prefer the same sex. This has been ably demonstrated time and time again by research scientists who know better than you or I do.
So some people are gay, whoopee doo. How does that affect the life quality of heterosexual right wing fundamentalist Christians? It doesn't. They rant purely based upon their principles not upon an material affect. Are people going to be condemned for holding other principles? I think not.
Jesus preached directly on things that mattered. Love, taking care of neighbours, adultery, wealth. He never spoke about homosexuality. Why? You simply cannot create a doctrine by what Jesus did not say or by inference of what he said about something else. If a law or rule is to be lived by it must be explicit.
Now the Church happily tolerates divorce and remarriage for all and any case. Odd that. You cannot say that the divorced person has repented and is thus forgiven so it is OK to remain in a second marriage (an adulterous relationship), and then not afford that same grace to someone in a homosexual relationship.
You cannot quote Leviticus either to support homosexuality is a sin. For one these laws were directed at the Jewish priesthood and their families and not the general population as the laws given in Deuteronomy. Furthermore, it is debatable as to whether the issue was homosexuality per se, or the fact it was homosexuality with pagan cult temple prostitutes. Time and time again, God focuses on Israel straying to other Gods as the prime motivator of his anger.
Christians can't have their cake and eat it. On the one hand they insist we are no longer under the law but under grace (many say we have no need to follow the ten commandments). Yet the same Christians love to extract certain laws that they still want others to abide by. How can the Christian say Levitical Law makes homosexuality a sin for non-Jews, but wearing mixed fibres and eating pork is perfectly acceptable? This is nothing but bigoted hypocrisy.a significant portion of the human population is wired to sexually prefer the same sex.
Wired or programmed? Horny or overly horny? I have always been of the opinion that people who choose a gayish lifestyle, homo, lesbo or bio are just quickly excitable and horny people, to horny for one gender, toys or for some, animals. I believe that our society encourages same sex activities. I also believe that some people persuade themselves that since they cannot get along with the opposite gender they think better success with the same gender. But programmed, well there are many flags and triggers in the dna, which are on and off switches. Could there be a switch that controls sexuality, yes i suppose so, is it intentionally for the direction of sexual purpose? Did God create people to be gay? I think we can see a lot of things that are humanly possible, but to say God created it to be that way is often just human speculation. Eve being made for adam speaks differently of Gods intention.
This has been ably demonstrated time and time again by research scientists who know better than you or I do.
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp= … mp;bih=618 A good read.
"Dr Hamer refused to answer questions on allegations he is under investigation by the US government's Office of Research Integrity, which examines suggestions of scientific misconduct. "You'd have to speak to my lawyers. All I can say is that the main findings of the earlier work have never been challenged." But Dr Hamer said it was far from certain that any man who inherits the "gay gene" will become homosexual."
Are people going to be condemned for holding other principles? I think not.
I think this is why principles are admonished in the bible from genesis onward. Principles are really what God is all about. Are people going to be condemned for holding other principles? I think so.
Jesus preached directly on things that mattered. Love, taking care of neighbors, adultery, wealth.
Jesus spoke about lots of things. He purported two commandments. Love the lord God with everything you got and your neighbor also, but not a physical, sexual love; a care and concern type of love. I think in this part of your reply you answer your own previous question about principles.
He never spoke about homosexuality. Why? You simply cannot create a doctrine by what Jesus did not say or by inference of what he said about something else. If a law or rule is to be lived by it must be explicit.
Without going into and quoting verses. Jesus upheld the Torah. He then amplified it by raising the bar. Jesus never said a lot of things He never told us not to cheat on our taxes, or to not smoke pot or speed on the highway. If you are trying to tell me that Jesus covered everything in every area of life, well, its just not written like that. Also recall that much of what jesus said is not mentioned in the bible. We only have 70 approx days covered of a 3.5 yr ministry. A very small amount. So if you want to infer something, infer that what isn't explicitly mentioned could have been said on some of those other unrecorded days. So to be fair to your discussion about this, when God tells me to go and fondle a c--- i will send you an email. Don't hold your breath though, he won't even tell me to go and fondle some t-ts.
Now the Church happily tolerates divorce and remarriage for all and any case. Odd that.
Not really odd at all. The Church happily has some pretty weird doctrines and that depends upon what church you are talking about. Clearly not all churches teach the same thing. For some churches they play a numbers game. By lowering the bar they gain population - a population that tithes. Joel osteen preaches a very watered down message, more like a self help than anything and his numbers are huge enough to fill a football stadium. Raising his bar would diminish numbers and hence monies. The idea of Christianity is not to make our own bar but just to be Meek to Gods instructions and do what God says.
As to remarried Christians.. who are we to judge their situation? We are called to love one another - again not physically but emotionally.
You cannot say that the divorced person has repented and is thus forgiven so it is OK to remain in a second marriage (an adulterous relationship), and then not afford that same grace to someone in a homosexual relationship.
Here you talk about gentile marriages. Jewish are not so much the same way and to be considered different than those who grew up in life (gentiles) having not been exposed to Torah. We gentiles live our own lives, we marry who we marry without any Godly guidelines. How many non christians seek out a christian person to marry? or vice versa. Many gentiles marry the woman who got mistakenly pregnant. These are actions of a previous life, sometimes our previous actions need to be corrected by God because of what God has planned for that person later on down the road. Sometimes the partner of the "just turned christian" doesn't want anything to do with Christianity. Paul wrote extensively on this topic, (1 cor 7) that if the unbelieving wants to depart, let them for we are to be peacemakers above all. You cannot tell me a divorced person has not repented, although under certain conditions, breaking up is not what God intended but as i have stated before, God is not keeping a list of sins to be accountable for on judgment day. How we handle our spirituality throughout our whole life is the degree of how our judgment turns out.
You cannot quote Leviticus either to support homosexuality is a sin.
But i can quote Deuteronomy 20 to you okay. These laws were directed at the CHILDREN of Israel (Jews) and the strangers (gentiles) in their midst also (verse 1) and covers the burning of babies (seed), family sexual relations, animal= sexual relations and gay relations. Again these statues were not JUST directed at the priests nor were they just directed to only those who worshiped other gods. I do not envy some of the sinful activity that those who come to Christ need to overcome, sometimes obstacles are huge and difficult - hence the kill command making seemingly impossible tasks, easiest for all.
Male and female is the way God intended for cyclic reasons; procreation and balance, yin and yang to those thus minded. Some say God made woman as another alternative to homosexuality and this statement i do not believe.
For one these laws were directed at the Jewish priesthood and their families and not the general population as the laws given in Deuteronomy.
Yes i have no problem with God speaking directly about stuff to his priests. Those in the temple needed to be told or reminded that pagan ways are not the ways of the God of the bible, but also we need to notice that these same statues or laws were also given to the General population of Israel also, for reasons of proper conduct in Gods ways. Paul mentions homosexuality because these nonhomo laws were given to the general population of Israel and not JUST to the priests but Hebrews goes on to say that those who accept Christ are all PRIESTS after the order of Melchizedek (heb 7) another reason i can mention the laws of Leviticus.
Christians can't have their cake and eat it. On the one hand they insist we are no longer under the law but under grace (many say we have no need to follow the ten commandments). Yet the same Christians love to extract certain laws that they still want others to abide by. How can the Christian say Levitical Law makes homosexuality a sin for non-Jews, but wearing mixed fibers and eating pork is perfectly acceptable? This is nothing but bigoted hypocrisy.
There is a certain cakewalk ability that plagues the gentile christian when it comes to the Law of Moses. Jesus quoted Moses and said that his laws were proper and right. So we must agree to that, but how far do we go with that? Jesus amplified the law, he made it pertinent to the heart and truth. "If a man so look upon a woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart." Now the application of eating seafood springs up in our faces that we should not eat shell fish. Red lobster for instance will eat dead fish, it crawls along the ocean bottom and feeds off whatever it finds, dead or living, small fish included but mostly the lobster is a bottom feeder eating dead flesh be it of fish or a human dumped off by the mafia. Now we know that the OT is a type, a shadow an example unto us in these end times (1 cor 10:11). So to look at the shellfish as a bottom feeder eating whatever lay dead we must spiritualize this or amplify this to mean we need to watch what we feed from in the avenue of bottom feeding. We have a term of bottom feeding today in our society.. "he is just a bottom feeder". A person of unscrupulous ways, a liar, a thief an opportunist perhaps eating unclean doctrine, then we could say, "You are what you eat." And to us this is the application of the law of shell fish. To be mindful of those who are bottom feeders. With GM products and commercial food processing it is impossible to know what is inside the foods we buy and eat. Tomatoes are spliced with salmon genes to give them a nice rosy coloration for example. Kosher would be hard to do these days, finances being what they are and kosher being hard to find on Vancouver island.
So to sum up this lengthy reply, the law needs to be applied today but in a different way than back then. This applies to shellfish because of the context of shellfish but not to homosexuality because of it explicitness. It is difficult to read the law of a 'man laying with a man as with a woman' and interpret it differently, than to look at a lobster and interpret that differently.You don't personally know any gay people do you? That will explain your ignorance about who they are. They don't choose to be gay, they just are, just like I am 5ft 10 with grey hair. You say God didn't make people gay. Really? I suppose he didn't make disabled people, people with a range of IQs, people with blue eyes rather than brown. If he knit everyone together in their mother's womb, who else made us what we are from our genes? Being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than my inbuilt personality traits being a mirror of my father's. He left home when I was 8 and had no involvement in my upbringing, thus personalities and inbuilt drivers are the product of our genes. Speak to someone who is gay and they will tell you that. I prefer brunettes, and no amount of effort could change my 'lifestyle choice' to prefer redheads.
Dr. Hamer, whoopee doo. Is he the only person in the world to have researched the origins of being gay?
So you appear to believe you have the authority to create doctrine not based upon what Jesus preached. He did speak about taxes....give to Caesar what is Caesar's. He spoke about all areas pertinent, important and necessary to life. The fact that he neglected homosexuality which you deem to be an issue of equal magnitude to adultery should tell you that you have your priorities confused. Simply put if Jesus believed that homosexuality was a serious issues, he would have said something. Similarly, if he did talk about it, obviously the Gospel writers did not believe it serious enough to include it. Now as the gospels could only contain a limited volume of his teaching, don't you think that the writers would have focused on the important issues. Perhaps when God was inspiring the writers by his spirit he forgot homosexuality.
As for smoking pot, big deal. "I give you every herb and fruit bearing seed". And to say that on the basis Jesus didn't tell us not to speed on the highway somehow gives us a commentary about homosexuality is patently ridiculous.
So to be fair to your discussion about this, when God tells me to go and fondle a c--- i will send you an email. Don't hold your breath though, he won't even tell me to go and fondle some t-ts.. I think you have issues.
As to remarried Christians.. who are we to judge their situation? We are called to love one another . It's a shame you do not afford the same courtesy to homosexuals. Again your bigoted attitude shines through.
You have never compared Deuteronomy and Leviticus have you. The laws in one are repeated in the other whether that be sacrifices to pagan gods, witchcraft, cursing parents, adultery, sexual relations with family members, bestiality. All that is except for 'homosexuality' which is confined to the laws directed at the priesthood. Odd that. Perhaps God forgot. However, the argument still stands that when forbidding "with male lying down in beds of woman", a literal translation, it does become rather ambiguous. The nearest equivalent command in Deuteronomy is that no Israelite will let their son or daughter become a temple cult prostitute. Now considering that Leviticus is focused on the priesthood; devotion to God and a separation from the practices of the pagans, it would seem we now have our answer. The issue is not homosexuality but cult prostitution.
Read into red lobsters all the spiritual gymnastics you want, a lobster is a lobster. The fact remains, you cannot pick and choose which Hebrew laws you wish to obey and which you do not.I am sorry but you attempt to wiggle out of the statutes contained in leviticus by purporting they are ONLY for the priests is on very thin ice, in fact there is no ice at all and you flounder.
Leviticus 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Leviticus 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
Leviticus 7:23 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.
Leviticus 7:29 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings.
Leviticus 7:34 For the wave breast and the heave shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever from among the children of Israel.
Leviticus 7:36 Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout their generations.
Leviticus 7:38 Which the LORD commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai.
Leviticus 9:3 And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying, Take ye a kid of the goats for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering;
Leviticus 10:11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
Leviticus 10:14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons' due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel.
Leviticus 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Leviticus 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Leviticus 15:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
Leviticus 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Leviticus 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
Leviticus 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Leviticus 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Leviticus 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
Leviticus 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Leviticus 17:2 Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them; This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, saying,
Leviticus 17:5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD.
Leviticus 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
Leviticus 17:13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 18:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Leviticus 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Leviticus 21:24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.
Leviticus 22:2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 22:3 Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 22:15 And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD;
Leviticus 22:18 Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;
Leviticus 22:32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,
Leviticus 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
Leviticus 23:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
Leviticus 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
Leviticus 23:34 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.
Leviticus 23:43 That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 23:44 And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD.
Leviticus 24:2 Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.
Leviticus 24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
Leviticus 24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
Leviticus 24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Leviticus 25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.
Leviticus 25:33 And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubilee: for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel.
Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
Leviticus 25:55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. Did God bring out only the levites?
Leviticus 26:46 These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.
Leviticus 27:2 Speak unto the children of Israel...
Leviticus 27:34 These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.You don't personally know any gay people do you? That will explain your ignorance about who they are.
Yes i do and no i am not ignorant about who they are.
They don't choose to be gay, they just are, just like I am 5ft 10 with grey hair. You say God didn't make people gay. Really? I suppose he didn't make disabled people, people with a range of IQs, people with blue eyes rather than brown. If he knit everyone together in their mother's womb, who else made us what we are from our genes?
Color of eyes and hair we know are programmed in our dna as a result of our parents combination of genetic material. I cannot and do not lump this data together with lifestyle choice. I do not subscribe that God forms us in the womb or knits us together other than the genetic material is there and does it thing whether its whole or broken.
Being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than my inbuilt personality traits being a mirror of my father's. He left home when I was 8 and had no involvement in my upbringing, thus personalities and inbuilt drivers are the product of our genes.
So what happens when you are a child is mirrored in your dna. Nice try. You simply are looking for a man to respect or even abuse, in either scenario, a father figure, any psychologist with tell you that and they deal with the head not the dna structure.
Speak to someone who is gay and they will tell you that.
So now you mention this like it is the ONLY answer. Sorry there are many other answers or rebuttals or justifications for this question.
I prefer brunettes, and no amount of effort could change my 'lifestyle choice' to prefer redheads.
Really? Perhaps you haven't met the right redhead. I like brunettes but i also like redheads and blondes and purple haired women all for different reasons, if you subscribe to those generalizations. I have found red heads to be more feisty than blondes. Perhaps you just have a habit of classifying everything like in Leviticus.. oh that's only for the priests and redheads are not for me. Jesus covered every area of life that we need to know about; Does that sound rational?
Dr. Hamer, whoopee doo. Is he the only person in the world to have researched the origins of being gay?
No. Does all my criteria have to be the only person to have ever done the research to be valid? The link was a google search page leading to many different people who have done this research. I figured you might want to check out the links not give me the duty of copying it all to the forum so that i can be validated in your opinion.
So you appear to believe you have the authority to create doctrine not based upon what Jesus preached.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
enough said about this.
He did speak about taxes....give to Caesar what is Caesar's. He spoke about all areas pertinent, important and necessary to life. The fact that he neglected homosexuality which you deem to be an issue of equal magnitude to adultery should tell you that you have your priorities confused.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Nice that you can say that Jesus covered ALL the areas pertinent and necessary to life.
C'mon.. i can't believe you said that. Notice that some of what jesus says is prompted by opposition and not just poured forth and some stuff is offered up freely (mount olives speech) but to say that he covered ALL or that ALL we need to know is covered in just 70 days out of 1,873 is rather outrageous not to mention con-fuddling.
Simply put if Jesus believed that homosexuality was a serious issues, he would have said something.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Did Jesus improve their water systems, or introduce hydro or tell them there were not four corners of the earth? or that the earth revolved around the sun, that demon possession was really schizophrenia or mental illness? There are so many things Jesus did not teach them that your statement screams of incorrectness. Simply put.
Similarly, if he did talk about it, obviously the Gospel writers did not believe it serious enough to include it. Now as the gospels could only contain a limited volume of his teaching, don't you think that the writers would have focused on the important issues. Perhaps when God was inspiring the writers by his spirit he forgot homosexuality.
God forgets nothing, remember we have leviticus and deuteronomy to go by.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
I wish you well in Him.
I mentioned in one of my comments that some mistakes in the Gospel were involuntary, due to illiterate copyists. But there are intentional mistakes. Mark 16: 9-11 were added much latter. A intentional inclusion to make a point. There are several books, written by scholars several times more competent than myself that prove the existence of additions and changes in the New Testament.
But, please, don't rely only on my word. I suggest , if you are interested in learning more about our Bible, that you read one book - Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why, by Bart Ehrman. He is a Ph.D from Princeton University and directs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Nice to know you took my comments about illiteracy and copying to heart. Moving along and not bothering to mention the correctness of my statement again, we shall now approach the topic of involuntary mistakes.
The greek language is not concerned with order, it doesnt matter if the words get shifted around, so if the copyist happened to recall the words and got some backwards or out of sequence, Greek is an inflected language, unlike english and the meaning of the sentence is not corrupted as it would be in english. No big deal at all if this happens.
It is reported that there are about 200,000 variants. This can be downplayed by the way variants are counted. If a single word is misspelled in 2,000 documents that is 2,000 variants, but still reflects the copyists accuracy even if illiterate. 28xs in my bible the nonword "moe" should be printed "more", 28 variants. Bibles do not have 200,000 variants, variants are counted across manuscripts not in the pages of my king james bible. Does that affect the christian creeds? Does it make my bible useless, nope or noe.
The variants when they occur tend to be minor and not substantial.
Any good bible these days will have margin notes alerting the reader to the variant.
Norman Geisler and William Nix says: " the NT has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book of antiquity but it has also survived in purer form than any other great book, about 99.5% pure." A full isaiah scroll was found at Quorum 99.% identical to other isaiah scrolls with a large time span in between. the Isaiah scroll is 60 feet long.
As to mark 16:9-11 not being found in other manuscripts that is true, however, these verses are found in the Greek koine manuscripts of the textus receptus or received texts (meaning the churches before 100ad were using them and considered them to be gospels from those whose names are mentioned upon them). Many other bible translations do not use these manuscripts that the church used, why i do not know.. it seems rather silly to me. So yes we can say some manuscripts do not have these verses but what manuscripts carry such weight as the textus receptus.. imho - none else will suffice, which is why i enjoy and feel confident about the king james.
As to bart ehrman:
Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's ...
www.amazon.com › Books › Christian Books & Bibles › Reference
"In Misquoting Truth, Timothy Paul Jones gives Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities the debunking they deserve. Jones exposes the bias and ...
I have read this and barts statements and this book sums up my opinion perfectly about this fellow. You can't stop research at the point where it just agrees with what you want to conclude. But, please, don't rely only on my word. I suggest , if you are interested in learning more about our Bible, that you read the book i mentioned.
Find Timothy Paul Jones on Facebook ... Christian College; M.Div., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ...
I believe that Jesus Christ as depicted in the NT is the Mesiah foretold in the OT. He said that he was speaking as "A"/ "The" representive of God. As such his words were as if they were coming out of Gods mouth. Does it really mater if B3lieve he was the actual son of God? Do I burn in hell if this one thing I do not believe the wording of? I can believe that 10,000 times quicker than I can believe the Pope is Gods representive on earth.
Sorry! I just can't believe all of them popes when they say that!Brother Yochanan: Thanks for your comments. I doubt that Erhman could be so wrong. After all, he is head of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. and a Princeton Ph.D. Anyway, I will read Misquoting Truth.
Jeramy: The title of Messiah (that means anointed), as well as Son of God, were given to the kings of Israel. I agree with you that it is not important to know if the Popes are the only channel to talk to God or not. In fact, I don't believe in many dogmas of the Church. What is important to me - very important - is that Jesus, God or not, was a great sage - the greatest illuminated prophet that visited earth - and gave us teachings that, if we were to follow them, the world would be a paradise. We would be living in the promised New Jerusalem.I think it is very important to know who and what Jesus is.
There is a big difference if we understand that Jesus was the name of that body in whom God took up residence and then put to death on a cross. This speaks volumes about Gods love for us, the length he will go for us, it mimics (pardon the expression) Abrahams almost sacrifice of Issac. If we understand that God was speaking to the pharisees and God was speaking to his disciples and God took it upon himself to be tempted as we are then we gain a whole other level of appreciation for God. An appreciation that helps us fulfill the number one commandment given by Jesus/God... Love the lord your God with all your heart.
When one uses the fact the God killed his son, Christ, to save humanity, my first reaction is thinking of inhumanity.
Killing his son? Is this a loving God?
Jesus was killed by the Romans. I cannot buy the notion that God - a loving God - is an assassin. No! No! No!
This myth was crested by human mind. God would not do that. Just to think He could kill his son gives me cramps.
Sorry! I cannot believe that.Jesus was annointed with the perfect wisdom and understanding of God. He was sent to teach the Jews this knowledge in order to save them from following their own conjectures of the Torah. The spiritual truths that Jesus taught have been lost.
I look at that differently. God sent his son out into the playground with his other children (US) to show us the way home. While he was here Jesus taught a different doctrine than the three major denominations of Judaism. There was already a sacrificial system established for remission of sin. Jesus played into that system demonstrating “The Way Truth and Light”
When Jesus died on the Cross; Though his physical body did; He didn’t die!
His suffering that final day is said to have been horrendous, and yet I think that this was something that he volunteered to do before his maculate conception. At the moment of his physical death; he was simply called home because his time to spend in the playground was finished, because he had accomplished that which he had come to do.
Calling our children to come home after they are beaten up by bullies in the playground is exactly the kind of thing that a parent does.Really? Parents deliberately place their children in the way of bullies and manipulate the bullies to beat them? Where is it said that his suffering was horrendous? Was his suffering worse than a normal human beings or something?
This is possible your worst defense of your majikal beliefs ever. Makes zero sense. None at all. "When Jesus dies on the cross - he didn't die."?Anyone who thinks that their own perception of reality is all that there can be is truly a prisoner of their own mind.
Right - anyone who doesn't think the nonsense you think of is a prisoner.
Odd you chose not to answer my questions and simply tell me your understanding is greater than mine.
This is why your religion causes so many fights.Been busy doing other stuff.
Excuse me but yours doesn’t appear to be a question that YOU would really expect an answer to; but an accusation. I do not see the “Higher Power” as just a father figure. When we attempt to simplify any complex concept into “A” basic understanding, That basic concept can not be defended against those who are looking for argument.. When we are looking for an argument we can find it most anyplace.Odd - you still didn't answer my questions. I am not stupid Jerami - feel free to make a more complex concept than "A" basic understanding. If that is why you think your concept makes utterly no sense.
That is why I asked you the questions.
Nice analogy Jerami.. Of course others will not understand the text because that would be like some sort of surrender to them and they can never surrender to a basic understanding of christianity. Basic understandings are what they need because the complex understandings are well beyond any sort of reply or comprehension.
When there is a greater goal Mark, parents will send their kids to all sorts of places, except in this case a parent did not send his child - God sent himself, hence the analogy can read: "God suffered the humiliation of being in flesh, living as a person and dying on a cross after many beatings, the crown of thorns must hurt, whippings etc... oh not to mention the heartbreak.
The greater goal in this case, mark, was the redemption of all humankind, so i can see how you would diss this event to the mere causality of a bad parent sending his son to be bullied but i don't understand why you just can't agree that in christian terms this analogy makes sense, after all, discussion is about open mindedness and to be in a forum without an open mind leads nowhere. You waste your time not seeking to know anything about what you single mindedly criticize. Are we really just here to discuss what you think or are you here to try to understand what we think. You stand at the foot of the cross in that crowd and i hope you earnestly don't pass from this life too soon.
Because you don't understand that this life is not the only life, there is another life after this life. The bible states this life is fleeting and to those able to stand on the other side of this life, this life is not a big deal at all. Also you miss the greater goal, whats that old saying the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Redemption is tantamount, and jesus joyfully went to the cross and why wouldn't he? Filled with Gods spirit anyone can look at death and laugh.
So the cramps you get are only caused by your fleshly reaction to a situation you don't fully grasp. Not to worry because in the true revelation of this scenario your cramps are completely misplaced.
brotheryochanan:
It is said that Jesus, when being crucified, claimed against being forfeited by the Father. This may indicate that He was not laughing. God could save humanity without killing Jesus.
In my view, Jesus was killed by the Romans, with the help of the Jewish clergy, because He was preaching too advanced concepts that could shatter Judaism. The Christian Churches, many years latter, justified the crucifixion saying that He died to save humanity.
In the old days, the Hebrews used to sacrifice the first born son to appease the God. Abraham was the first to reverse the custom. I think that God is good and I cannot believe that He would send Jesus to the cross.hi sorry for the delay i am a busy boy.
i do not understand "claimed against being forfeited by the father".
i disagree that God could save humanity without killing the body of Jesus. i agree that God Would not save humanity any other way. In saying this we omit who resided in the body of Jesus.
i have no problem with your view of who killed Jesus except that the prophesies are quite accurate about this suffering servant. Shatter judaism was indeed the intent by ending the power of the Law one needs to suffice the Law.
i really don't care what the churches many years later had to say i prefer the received texts of the churches from Paul back then and what the gospels have to say. Constantine is no biggie to me.
Cain and abel did not sacrifice humans, the hebrews in egypt i would hazard a guess that no they did not. Animals were always the accepted sacrifice after egypt and it wasn't necessarily first born but rather male and a firstling of the flock, meaning young, within 3 yrs approx.
Abraham was not the first to reverse this custom unless you portray him in contrast to those other nations who practiced a form of abortion described as child sacrifice.
Again if you think that God would not go through what he went through as Jesus then you underestimate the love of God for us, ignoring his power, eternity and everything else that is God and you may even being saying that there was no need to end the Law, which of course, there was a need to end the Law.
I suggest to all the excellent book by Richard Rohr - Immortal Diamond.
Rohr is a Franciscan priest in New Mexico, and a fantastic writer with dozens of excellent books.
He suggests that The Gospel of Mark, the oldest one of the canonical Gospels, ended at 16:8.
My questions: Who wrote 16:9-20? What was the objective?
In the initial years after Jesus death, there were disagreements on certain issues of Christianity. Is it possible that whoever completed Mark Gospel wanted to prove his point of view? I think so.Brother Yochanan
If you do not believe Ehrman, how about Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest and fantastic writer. His last book is Immortal Diamond. Rohr , in the very beginning, suggests that the original Mark stopped at 16:8. Who wrote 16: 9-20? With so many different views among the Christians after Jesus death, did somebody changed the Bible to justify his points?Fr. Richard Rohr offers a conference on Franciscan Mysticism October 28-29, 2012 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Richard Rohr, O.F.M. is a Franciscan friar ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church in 1970.
i don't really offer an opinion about this roman catholic, Franciscan friar. Except that i have to wonder why he is still catholic and at that, a roman catholic. If he knows so much about the catholic faith he must surely know that many practices are properly pagan, so why subscribe to RC? Perhaps friars have comfy lives these days, i do not know and apathetically, neither do i care. There are (low estimate) hundreds of people who all say different things, when and if this person becomes important enough to me that i find necessity in searching him out, i will, until then - not even bookmarked.
If mark 16 did stop at verse 8 that would make it the shortest chapter in all the gospels and it would omit vs 9 which flows along in subject with the previous verses. Other gospels support marks account in this area. The Mary's at the tomb work out perfectly well and there is no contradiction about these women as witnesses. I enjoy Mark 16:9 onward.
There aren't really so many views if one just sticks to the textus recepticus.
I believe that prior to the niv version the first important tweaking of the NT occurred before king james got his final copy and that this tweaking was accomplished by catholic bishops. The tweakings are not massive as to add 15 verses onto a chapter or to remove whole pages, but they are more subtle and when dealing with the old testament for example - i refer to usage of the word satan, notice how it is applicable where there is some spiritual activity going on and used correctly as 'adversary, opponent' when clearly the reference is to an angel or a human. Red sea, Reed sea it makes no difference. The NT is clearly interpreted along hellenistic mindset by the scholars meaning that often a more generalized word is used instead of a specific word which alters meaning. Prepositional words are words that convey a position, in by with etc.. which are very important since the meaning can vary greatly with each word. Some words are added to make the english flow accordingly.
The NT is a good representation of what Jesus did and God wants to do and people can experience the kingdom of God by it, but really the book is not the christian main focus, God is.
Greek is not as good a language as hebrew or aramaic.
i purport that one can pray to God without the bible and still be saved and get their reward come the resurrection.okay so i took a further look into richard rohrs' book.
i found this summary to be indicative:
"According to Richard Rohr, resurrection is about “a universal man leading us into a universal future – and doing that by making us of all the past and transforming it.” He then defined the false self as the ego or shadow self, which is only an illusion. The false self is defined by labels outside (or outward attachments), usually based on performance, social class, etc. Many adherents of the Christian religion have attempted to deal with this false self by being moralistic and legalistic, which only produces condemnation, since it is based on the law mindset or the principle of “doing in order to become”.
I agree with Richard Rohr’s definition of our true self as our soul, which is the “hidden treasure in the field” and “pearl of great price”. When people know their true self, they will overcome the problem of inferiority, unworthiness and low self-esteem. So yes, the Christ Mystery is that we all begin with divine DNA, and there is nothing for us to do to earn our innate divinity and magnificence.
I am aware that in some grace circles, people are taught to say “It is all of Jesus and none of me” as a way to showing their humility. Actually, I think they are right in the sense that it is all about our true self (Christ in us the hope of glory) and nothing about our false self (illusion of ego/shadow self)."
My opinion of this book:
This is a form of gnosticism. It takes away from a sin forgiving God who has eternal life and reads more like a tony robbins book on self help. Not christian, not biblical truth. A waste of time if trying to get to know God.
This book clearly misses the mark of what God has said throughout the history of mankind.
Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
11It is written:I believe in Christ resurrection in spirit, not bodily.
Orthodox Christianity created many myths as a gimmick to attract followers. But they should be read as myths, not facts.
Jesus teachings are important to me, not Christ mythology. Virginal birth, bodily resurrection, and so on. If you read these myths symbolically, metaphorically, not as fact, they make a lot of sense.They make less sense than reading them as they are.
Virginal birth means much more than just a woman who had not had intercourse but was pregnant. It is the power of God to produce a body of flesh that He would use. It eliminates the dna complications of human sources. It fulfills:
Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Notice that God switches who He speaks to... its not isaiah anymore but the house of david.
Bodily resurrection.. how would the resurrection have appeared to man if jesus body was still in the tomb? Pretty silly. You need to read ezekiel 37 about the dry bones to understand resurrection properly.
Christ mythology... that gave me a chuckle.
The problem with taking things to mystically is that the basics of fact are tossed out the window. The basics of God are thrown away along with everything that God is doing with mankind since the beginning.
I've been in a long debate with a 'knowledgeable' fellow about how the 'mystical' approach to the bible; where everything is metaphoric. It quite contradicts bible simplicity. He stated that the sun is a father, the moon represents mother and the stars are children of God. I quickly referred to each one of these topics and showed him clearly and not to succinctly that the bible defines none of these as applicable interpretations. Stubbornly he refused to see that these are paganistic interpretation and not the "spiritual interpretations" that he clings to. My final conclusion is that esoteric knowledge to some is their private vanity.
Paul said:
Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
Romans 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Simply put, it is not in knowledge but relationship and experience toward God that brings one into the fullness of salvation.The idea that passages in the Bible are mythical, fictional is a personal choice. Saying something is mythical because we can't understand it does not need so.
If we want to claim something is mythical we can simply say the whole Bible is mythical.
The Bible is talking about a God and since God claims Jesus as his child then Jesus to is God.
In spirit? Jesus Himself said in Luke 24:38,39 “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” - this was on the day of His resurrection...
Also, In John 20 - as Jesus was proving to Thomas that He was really alive - Jesus told Thomas to touch and feel Him to see that this was true.
Interestingly, Thomas' response also goes against your premise in this article - "My Lord and My God!"
This is scripture, not someone's opinion.I'm sorry, my friend, but Romans 10 absolutely declares that believing in Jesus' resurrection is a pre-requisite for salvation. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says that without believing in this basic doctrine, you are still dead in your sins...your future is at stake on this issue, my friend!
believing in the resurrected Christ is important. How can we believe if he is not ascended? i think however, that the importance is misplaced, you see, the importance is not on just saying the words, "He is risen" but on the way this belief about His resurrection plays out in our lives. It is the affect that this belief has upon us. It is one thing to say, "oh yes i believe Jesus rose from the grave" but how does this belief work in our daily lives is of the utmost importance.
Paul is correct there needs to be a belief of resurrection or at least an understanding.
When people newly come to christianity they have gotten there through 'saving faith' - that small percentage of faith that is in everyone, enough to give credence to a higher power and then to seek it out - after time has passed their relationship with God should improve and grow as a 'mustard seed' to the point where resurrection is reality and works upon the course of ones' way.
Proverbs 23:7 as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.
Suffice it to say, that in the days of Paul, being someone who had seen the risen Christ a witnesses to the resurrection and having openly declared such happenings, they/he were held accountable for what they had said. Their eyes had seen and they were purporting to others what they had seen. A pivotal aspect in the Christian faith then. So i offer up that although there is a prayer by mouth to God which initializes being born again that the pattern of speech whereby we must speak are likened unto "our father who art in heaven..."; a template not a literal recipe.
With all due respect lifegamer, either the Bible is what it claims to be or it's not. Either it is the infallible, inerrant, completely-true Word of Almighty God - or it's false and shouldn't even be considered. I submit to you and anyone else reading this, that it IS completely true! You can't cherry-pick what you think sounds good and leave the rest.
God has already told us everything that He'll ever tell us, and it's wrapped up inside the pages of the Old and New Testament. No philosophy, religion, sect, or cult can ever change what He's already told us. Mainly this:
God, the Creator of the World set the rules for us to follow.
We broke these rules and alienated ourself from the life that is in Him - bringing on ourself the punishment of death.
Jesus, God in the flesh, came and took that punishment on Himself to forgive the sins of anyone who believes in Him.
The ONLY way to be saved is through faith in the name of Almighty God - Jesus Christ Himself.I can understand the draw for self-improvement philosophies that try to eliminate the need for Jesus' sacrifice - but they're all useless! Jesus Himself said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me!"
The question is, are you going to take Him at His Word or not? Your eternal destination depends on your answer to this question...the Qur'an is the only pure Word of God left in the world and the Bible needs to be filtered through the Qur'an to find its meaning. But just like the Jews are not given the understanding of the Gospels, the Christians are not given the understanding of the Qur'an.
The bible was first. You cannot filter the prior through the after to come to correct understanding. Especially since there is a lot of contradictory teaching in quran. The two are nothing alike and neither is the muslim religion anything at all near what jesus taught. There is a lot of apostasy happening 300 yrs after jesus and the quran is another. Ya don't have to be smart to know the quran and mohammed are both fakes.
The Qur'an is just as much the Word of God as The Hobbit. As in, you know, it's not. It's a book of laws and stories and poems written by desert-dwelling nomads who needed something supernatural to explain menial, everyday things. This could easily apply to any other similar books of laws and stories and poems written by desert-dwelling nomads.
Le us clarify this issue of resurrection. I do believe in Jesus' resurrection, but not bodily. We are all spirits. The Gnostics used to say that we, living on Earth are the dead. When we die, and get rid of our bodies, we live.
Gnosticism is a religious belief of old that thought that everything was created by an imperfect God, and that there is a God greater than the one that created us.
Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a matter.
gnosticism: a religious orientation advocating gnosis as the way to release a person's spiritual element
gnostics believed that since matter was evil and God the spirit was all- good, there was an intermediary between God and creation: "The Christian Gnostic teaching is traced by historians to Simon Magus.
Gnosticism is religous existentialism and the gnostic is in search of the answer to the mystery of existence his quest is for a fragment of the divine its a quest for redeeming knowledge.
When gnostics speak of salvation, they mean being freed from these illusions of darkness so that they can perceive Reality.
I do not hold in any esteem what the gnostics say.People can say anything however that doesn't make it so. The Pharisees were thought of as revered individuals understanding religious doctrine yet when Jesus arrived he criticized them for their understanding of the doctrine.
Legalism true enough but it was more than just that, their actions subverted the message of the Bible.
Matthew 23:27
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
Matthew 21:13
He said to them, "The Scriptures declare, 'My Temple will be called a house of prayer,' but you have turned it into a den of thieves!"
Related Discussions
- 47
Roman Catholic Coverup
by Dave Mathews 8 years ago
There exists in print, manuscripts of Holy Gospels one written by Thomas, and another written by Mary Magdelene. The Roman Catholic Church declares them as heresay and has forbidden these manuscripts to be transcribed, translated or incorporated into the Holy Word of God the Holy Bible. What is the...
- 65
Why do Catholics not believe in the Bible?
by augustine72 12 years ago
It is quite obvious that Catholics do not follow many things in the Bible. They look at the Church as the one that sets all standards. Why is it so?
- 34
Why Do you Hate Catholicism?
by Jon 11 years ago
As a Catholic, I was wondering why is it that every Christian Denominations are lambasting/bashing Catholic doctrines and teachings. This is purely based on my experience when I was still in college when I joined other Christian sect like the Born Again Christians and others.
- 71
What are the main differences between Christians and Mormons?
by Shawn Yeager 5 years ago
What are the main differences between Christians and Mormons?
- 23
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?
by Mikel G Roberts 8 years ago
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?The earliest Protestant church was the Lutheran Church, named after the Catholic monk Martin Luther. The man that broke away from the only christian church in existence, the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was...
- 21
How Do I Identify The True Christ Church From Satan (False) Church?
by ngureco 13 years ago
How Do I Identify The True Christ Church From Satan (False) Church?