Why do Christians think everyone else is wrong?
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other people have different lives and different experiences, and let them believe how they want, as long as they're seeking god in some form?
That is the mission of Christians, to spread the Gospels, to accept Jesus.
But, you'll quickly notice that they themselves will tell each other they're wrong in their beliefs.
Grab the popcorn.I've always found that to be the funniest. Some Pentecostals will say (and I've heard this with my own ears many times) that Catholics will go to Hell or that even Baptists will go to Hell, and Baptists are the closest to Pentecostals as far as the Protestant faiths go! Craziness...
The ignorant will always pretend to be knowledge, thus they deceive themselves continually.....
Plus all they can see in others is themselves......which is Ignorance..thus the war continues.I don't think that. I am Christian. Therefore all Christians don't think that. You are accidentally doing the same thing that the ones you are questioning do.
But to answer the question assuming there was a "some" in there, because they have read the bible and interpreted as such. Or, more likely, they have had someone tell them that that's what the verses mean.Okay, excuse me I did in fact generalize a bit. Let me re-phrase my question, "Why do many Christians believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong?" You are one of the few who do not...my mom is one like you, but every other Christian I've met in life believes that everyone else is wrong and they are right.
How strongly do you hold to the view that some Christians think they're right and everyone else is wrong? I suppose if you think you're right, then everyone else is wrong, aren't they?
Didn't you see this coming before you said it?I can't speak for Kitty of course but I don't think I read that she thought she was right. When it comes to matters of spirituality there are hundreds of differing views and many within Christianity itself. A lot of people have their beliefs and ideas but have an open mind and don't find it necessary to tell others they are wrong. I don't claim that my way is right and anything else is wrong. I don't think Kitty was implying that either. All of what I've heard about Christianity and from Christians though seems to be consistent that they believe (claim they know) that they are right.
I'd imagine that every faith has what I call, it's share of Chr-eastors, people who practice their faith on Christmas and Easter, or a combination of 'religious holidays.' Also, I know of people who attend church every week; but you'd never know by their actions!
Autumn, is your view that "people who are certain they are right are not open-minded but those that are not certain are open-minded" just an opinion or are you certain about that? If you are certain, then you are not open-minded, by your own definition. You are right and you know it. If you are not certain, and it's just an opinion of yours that people who are certain they are right are not open-minded, then you and Kitty should soften your tone because it sounds accusatory and not charitable. You sound as if you know that Christians are wrong for holding such views. You should be willing to take either side on the matter.
Hi Bibowen. It's my opinion that people who close off other points and ideas and claim their way is the only right way, are right are not open-minded. I'm not a black and white person so I don't like to claim I am certain of anything.
I'm sorry I sound like that is what I'm saying. On the contrary, I think religion/spirituality is something that can't be known and is not right or wrong. So I'll re word it and say that anyone saying that someones else's religion or way of thinking spiritually is wrong, is not cool.I've heard this view before (actually several times). It strikes me as a claim that, in matters of spirituality, it's a morally superior position to claim not to know something than to claim to know something. My hangup with this is that yours is equally a claim to knowledge: it's a claim that we cannot know. As I see it, you're criticizing (I'm sure you're doing it kindly) the fundamentalist who claims that Jesus is the only way to God. He's obviously narrow-minded in your view because he's making this absolutist claim that he couldn't possibly know whether or not it's true. But yours is equally a claim to know something. And I don't see how your claim is superior to his.
But I have more of a problem with your view than with his because you're criticizing him because you claim that he can't know, a claim that you are making because you think you're right. I know you would like to think you're more open-minded, but I don't see how. Your approach allows you to label him as "narrow-minded" while you appear to be "open-minded" without having to present an argument to defend your position.
A more honest and open approach is to make clear your position. Your position is that, when it comes to spiritual matters, it's not possible to know the truth. As someone that holds that position, what's your evidence for such a view?That's understandable. Perhaps I am criticizing that fundamentalist by saying he/she is narrow minded. When it comes to being told I'm wrong, a bad person, lost, sad, etc. I form a certain opinion.
True. Most people think their opinions are right. Is it possible I'm wrong and/or a hypocrite? Sure.
I would like to think I'm open minded but I know I can falter. I don't want the perception to be that I find all Christians narrow minded. I certainly do not think that. So I can either change my position or admit that I am not as open minded as I'd like to be. My opinion that spirituality can't be a known truth comes from the fact that no one seems to agree on it. This group thinks they are right, that group thinks they are, and so on and so on. If a truth is there then we should all know it right? I'm sure that doesn't qualify as "evidence" but it's how I came to that idea.Excuse me, you might be able to help me understand something that I find to be odd. Why do people join Hubpages, spend their time on forums bating people with boorish nonsense and never produce Hubs? It seems like one would go to a site that hosts forums. There must be hundreds on the net. This kind of dribble diminshes the quality of this effort.
I take it you think I'm baiting people with boorish nonsense. Are you hostile towards me because I haven't produced a hub? I've been planning to write something but writing isn't one of my talents so I keep stalling. I'm sorry my dribble is bothering you. Perhaps this isn't the place for me.
Hold on autumn18, don't go anywhere. I am a free lance artist and writer. I am also a certified vocational instructor. Check my bio. I'm not playing games (except on break). This is a good opportunity if you play it right. Just like franchise cosmetics, some people make money, and some people have a closet full of makeup. I am also a certified vocational instructor and have had successful businesses in the past. I know what a workplace is supposed to look like. There are too many jerks standing around the water cooler and talking smack. I don't put up with slackers in my shop.
This is a multi-media magazine. It is real-time and interactive . . . something new. It is also international. The hard working, serious journalists in other countries can see into this glass house . . . embarrassing that we are fiddling while Rome burns.
Don't stall, start that hub tomorrow. You can write. You got a reaction from me. People will love what you say, the pictures and video you shot and the links that take them someplace they have never been before. You can present your effort unimpeded by distractions. Notice that I "followed" you. I will check it out and tell you how much I love it. Peace, Chip
I don't understand how you can reject a claim merely because it lacks universal consensus. How could science or (for that matter) knowledge in general advance if we refused to accept a claim merely because we couldn't get everyone to agree on it?
Galileo thought he was right; a lot of people thought he was wrong. Should his ideas about a heliocentric solar system be rejected because "this group thinks they are right, that group thinks they are, and so on and so on...."? Furthermore, Galileo was right, but not all of his reasons for embracing heliocentricism were sound. But he was right, even if some of his reasoning was wrong.
It seems to me that any serious consideration about religious claims ought to be whether or not they are true, and not whether or not agreement is reached on those claims.May I add . . . whther true or not . . . why be so concerned about someone else's religion unless you are up next for human sacrifice?
Actually I don't even think it's important to prove a religion is true. People can can practice whatever religion they want and believe whatever makes them happy and at peace. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to be a right or wrong matter.
Stating my opinion on something makes me "so concerned" about it? I'm really not.That's incredible: people can believe a lie so long as it makes them happy and at peace. I find it interesting that you state your own religious views with the same absoluteness that you condemn in others. You believe your own religious views to be true, yet you chastise others for the same.
So, what about your religious views--the ones that say that it doesn't matter what religious beliefs you hold so long as it helps you to be "happy and at peace." I suppose you believe what you believe because it's what makes you "happy and at peace" but you don't really care that that belief is true.
If you say "no" I'm going to ask you why we should regard your religious views as true and everyone else's as bogus. If you say "yes" I'm going to ask you why what you say should be believed since you don't believe it to be true.
In short, it seems that you undermine your own statement. If religious claims need not be true, then that applies to your own religious views, including your view that religion is merely subjective and for the purpose of placating the adherent's inner demons. Is that why you adopted the religious views that you hold? For your own inner peace?When did I state my religious views? I don't think I ever said anything in absoluteness or that I chastised anyone. My opinion is only that it bothers me that others feel the need to say others are wrong in their beliefs or ideas or spritual views.
Without going into the details of my spiritual beliefs (I don't claim a religion) I can say that yes they make me feel happy. Like I said, I don't condsider these beliefs a matter of right or wrong so that includes what I believe as well.
I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe. I also never said what others believe is bogus.
It does also apply to my own views for sure. I'm not claiming to belive in something that is immoveable and absolute truth. I have ideas that make me happy. My opinion that religion/spirituality isn't something that can be proven to be right or wrong or even needs to be is just that, an opinion.
I like the questions. I hope I'm making myself clear. It can be tedious typing it all out and assumptions can be made. Perhaps this will just need to end with difference in opinion. I'm ok with that. Have a great day/night.
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other people have different lives and different experiences, and let them believe how they want, as long as they're seeking god in some form?
I do not believe any of that mumbo-jumbo and believe all people are entitled to there own beliefs. I have friends who are buddhist, muslim, etc. I accept all of them for who they are. So not all Christians judge others for what they believe. I am one of them.We Christians don't all think like this. Maybe you should narrow your stereotyping to the evangelists at least.
That's why I rephrased to "many" christians. Thanks!
Most proselytizing religions use a "carrot and stick" approach to winning new converts. In Christianity, they are, respectively, heaven and hell. You are rewarded with the former by declaring that you believe Christ is your savior.
However, as many more "evolved" Christians will tell you, they don't believe that. They believe you can be a good person without being a Christian.
I remember a rabbi saying that you could imagine heaven (or enlightenment, or whatever) metaphorically as the peak of a giant mountain that covers most of the planet, the base of which spreads across various climates around the world. At the base of the mountain, people are dressed very differently, to adapt to very different conditions. As people work their way up the mountain, the climates are more similar, and people dress more and more alike. By the time you reach the top, it doesn't matter what you were wearing when you were at the base.How insightful and beautiful. Thanks livelonger!
Maybe it's a bit like all the Atheists telling Christians they are all wrong.
It's all about what one believes.
Everyone has the "truth" cornered!
Everyone can think what they want......the truth is still there. That should concern you. So do some thinking for yourself and find that the bible is the most accurate historical writing we have. Over 40 authors wrote the bible over several hundred years with total agreement. 9 of the 10 disciples of Jesus were killed for there belief. Why would so many be willing to die for a lie? How could these writers plan all this.
There was never a global flood, donkeys cant talk, and men cannot live inside fih for 3 days
Thats why deuteronomy tells you to kill people and exodus tells you not to kill people.
People die for their beliefs all the time. That doesnt mean all those beliefs are true. What a ridiculous argument that is.You would have a point, but you can not actually verify your point. You see the bible is the only book that has stood the Test of time and has never been proven wrong. In fact many bible prophesies have been fulfilled and others are going to be. Actuallyyou might want to consider what you said again. If the bible is only a book some one made up why would they be willing to die for a lie. Show me any evidence more compelling than the bible
It has been proven wrong and I told you already what parts of it are wrong.
I also explained that lots of people die for what they believe in and that does not make their belief true.
I see you are deliberately ignoring reason and simply repeating yourself.
Repetition does not make something true either by the way.How has it been proven wrong. Are you the authority? You told me what parts are wrong? Are you God? No one dies for something they made up ! And to find others to die for the same lie? Get real. Whose authority or where is there any authority that can discredit the bible? If your asking me, the bible is it's own authority. If not show me reason, not your opinion
1.There was never a global flood
2.No. Should I be?
3.Yes I did. I just did it again
4.No. I dont believe there is such a thing
5.I never said that they did. I dont understand the purpose of your strawman.
6.Joseph smith did pretty well on that front
7.Like irony do you?
8.Why does it need to come from an authority? There was never a global flood. FACT
9.Im not.
10.I never showed you my opinion. If you want, my opinion is that the book is a childrens fairytale and any adult who still believes in it is a retarded moron. Everything else I have said is just plain fact.Okay. A bunch of I's. The book of Mormon was made up by one man. Joseph smith did not die and raise himself up. Is that a God worth following? If my eternity is at stake or yours? Are you going to rely on another man? Forever is a very Long time and we will die. The bible was written over hundreds of years by some 40 authors.all agreeing. Countless of phophisies fulfilled. No other religion's god has ever died and raised himself up from the dead. We have many scientific evidence of Jesus having been on this earth. And I want to agree with your I'?
1. Thats because you asked questions about me.
2.That's not what we were talking about and you know it. You were talking about people dying for their beliefs you dishonest turd. People believed in joseph smith and they died for their belief. Does that make it true? No.
3.what?
4.What, you mean like jesus or mohammed? no I wouldn't. Why do you?
5.Are you talking about an afterlife? Prove that there is one.
6.No it doesnt. It contradicts itself all over. One chapter tells you to kill and another tells you not to kill. I told you this already but you ignored it because it is not what you want to hear.
7.I also told you to google "failed bible prophecies" to see what nonsense that is but you seem to have ignored that aswell.
8.Neither has yours. You cant prove that jesus rose from the dead.
9.I dont care if jesus was on this earth. all that proves is that a man existed. So what?
10.You might need to explain that last sentence.You seem to only base your objections with I, I, I, no on cares what I think or what you think? We do not even know each other. The fact is you and I will die and what you think will not matter. What any man thinks will not matter. You have no peace and you have no idea what happens after you die. What will you do? once again make sure you are right. Eternity is a very long time. The.bible is clear, unless we come to know Jesus Christ and believe that he died for you and I we will face the penalty for sin. Only by what he has done for us are we saved. There is nothing we can do to earn life. Your bright enough to realize that the fact that you will die should make you think about what happens next. Once again where is there any authority that can discredit the bible. What you think does not matter
THERE WAS NEVER A GLOBAL FLOOD
For the third time are you retarded or something?
I have given you FACTS not opinions.
All you do is ignore everything I say and repeat yourself over and over again.
You are worse then a deaf blind man who wont shut up repeating the same nonsense.
Prove there is an afterlife. Prove the bible is true. Prove there is a god. Prove there is a hell and a heaven. Prove there is a soul.
NOONE HAS TO DISCREDIT THE BIBLE I TOLD YOU THIS ALREADY AND EXPLAINED WHY TWICE
But you dont listen. You simply ignore and repeat yourself over and over again like an idiot.You have never given any facts. No one has proven the bible wrong. And so if it is not wrong there must be truth. I repeat myself cause the bible is correct and has authority on your life and all you can say is what you think. How bizarre for me to place my eternity on what you think.
No one has proven it to be correct either.
Untrue statement.
This statement is nothing more than BS. It has authority over YOUR life and no one else. It has authority over your life because you're gullible enough to give it that authority.
This statement is just ridiculous.You're full of shit. You have to be trolling. Noone could be as dumb as you for real.
After being told the bible has not been disproven 5 times, each time after me explainng a part of the bible that is not true, I give up.
I know the feeling. Like I said. Your presence is interesting around here, and you are capable of good work. I have been thrown off of the religion forums by Big Brother a couple of times. I had to sit in the corner and promise not to be naughty. I have a bunch of hubs on the runway, but am having technical difficulties. The movie service is wacked. It must be sun spots. Whatever's clever. Peace.
I got banned for a few days for an argument with some guy who would not accept that the definitions of words change with society and culture and time.
It was over the definition of the word "atheist". I said it was the lack of belief in a god and he said it was the belief there was no god.
My argument was that there are many people on each side who define either way.
His argument was that his definition was right and I was an idiot.
Naturally I threw an insult after a day of arguing and got banned for 3 days. I think I called him a "belligerant prick".That must have pricked his heart.
I started a thread by bating atheists. They fell for it hook, line and sinker. I couldn't quit laughing. I had to change my shorts. They exposed themselves for their petty approach to life. They missed the joke and failed to appreciate the classic script I wrote. I channeled Davy Crockett (the real one, not Fess Parker) and commented on every post. I got a little crazy and they puuled my plug. When Big Brother let me come back, I checked it out. The atheists were still flailing away with personal attacks without presenting an argument. They were totally blind to their own inability to take a joke.
We are not so uptight in my town. We get outside a lot and play in the ocean. I never dreamed there were so many bone heads on one planet. I write regionally in the real world. My friend read an article that I wrote about that trash fish, tilapia. He suggested Hubpages as a viable (paying) opportunity (a collective of writers pursuing improvement and opportunity). When I showed him what was going on, he said it didn't used to be that way and said, "Just like Florida . . . if you let too many Yankees in they funk up everything!"
The moderator was off the hook! While I was away popping out hubs, She went in and selected a few of my choice comments and erased the rest. The effect was more than I could have hoped for. I had to change my shorts again. "Calling All Atheists, bring your flimsy case to this court". What got me . . . there were only personal attacks. To my knowledge, no one actually stated a case. I got tired of it and haven't been back. Some of the folks who posted think I am hateful and i was just imitating them. What a trip. It is still around here somewhere.
___________________
You say there was no global flood because someone else said it, I know you have not proven it yourself, have you?
The old testament is part of Hebrew history and is taught in school.
No judge is appointed unless he or she is literate in the Torah
The Flood of Noah occurred more than 4,000 years ago. So there are no eyewitness survivors on earth to tell us about it. However, there is a written record of that catastrophe, which states that the flood waters covered the tallest mountain of that time.
Genesis 7:17-20.
You know...Speaking of people dying for their beliefs...A few groups come to mind...
Heaven's Gate
Order of the Solar Temple
People's Temple (Jonestown)
And I am sure you can name many more.Your right. Millions of people commit suicide. What is your point. I am guessing all these people did not die for you? Where does this place you after you die?
Only the truth will set you free. Cagsil you live a life of no reason. You will die someday and then your opinion will not matter Today is the day of your salvation. Where will you be when life is done for you
Yes it has already.
You're joking right? A life of no reason. My life has purpose, which gives it meaning. Understanding my life is the reason for the purpose it has and the meaning which it has been given.
Yes, that is true. I will die one day and after that my opinion will not matter, but the truth I leave behind will.
Salvation? What in the world do I need salvation for? I do good, I harm no one and my life's purpose is selfless. Can you say the same?
The same place you will be...dead.
The point is... People die for beliefs all the time. It doesn't make them right nor does it make thier beliefs factual. And the groups I mention, died for their religious beliefs, does that make their religion the true one, because they were willing to die for belief in it?
The only person or persons who have died for me that I am aware of is my country's military. And I don't worry about death, I concern myself with living. And since death is the end of living and all of us are going to die, it doesn't require me to worry about it happening. Life on the other hand takes work. I'll worry about that, as that is something I actually have some control over.
The point I am making is that with millions of books written only the bible has stood the test of time and is still sold more than any other book. It has historical evidence since it was written over hundreds of years by more than 40 different authors from different backgrounds, all agreeing with no contradictions. You are all talking from your opinion? Who is right? Am I basing my afterlife on your opinions? It will not matter after I die. The bible is plain to all who want to see truth. No authority has ever been able to discredit it! So ignore this truth and you will find eternity a very long time. Our life is short, but then comes the judgment
I am not talking from opinion. Nor am I saying who is right or wrong. And I don't expect you to base your beliefs on or from mine.
And in the same respect, you shouldn't expect me to base my beliefs from your interpretation of a book.
The bible is filled with contradictions.
Does God have respect to people... Or not?
-Exodus 2:25 "And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them."
-Romans 2:11 "For there is no respect of persons with God."
Will the earth perish... Or last forever?
-Hebrews 1:10-11 "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish."
-Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
Should we follow our own hearts?
-Ecclesiastes 11:9 "Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes."
-Numbers 15:39 "Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes."
Does God tempt no one?
-James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"
-Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
Does man suffer their father's sins?
-Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity [sin] of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
-Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity [sin] of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Should we make graven images... Or not?
-Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"
-Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat."
Does God change his mind... Or not?
-Exodus 32:14 "So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened."
-Numbers 23:19 "God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done."
And a little study into the bible, will show you that much of the OT was edited and put into the form we mostly see today by a few different schools of thought around the time of or directly after the babylonian exile. The books by the prophets were mostly written by personal scribes. Amos was the first Prophet to personally write his own book. The NT was written starting around 50CE more than 20 years after the (Supposed) events took place (Paul was the first Christian writer of the bible and he even states that he didn't get his message from man and never met Jesus in the flesh, he met him in "spiritual form") and the Gospels (written after much of Pauls letters) weren't even written by eyewitnesses. Different backgrounds between authors? They were all Hebrews (Israelites) for the OT and the NT was written by Roman influenced Jewish authors (Hebrew/Israelites). Paul was a Pharisee (Jew), and if the Gospels where indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they were of Jewish origins as well. Same with the apostles.
As to historical evidence...well all books written have some data taken from the real world. Look at Homer's works.
I would wonder if you take the Bible literally, figuratively or both. How do you determine which? Have you actually studied into what certain words and phrases actually mean?
I am not discounting your beliefs, I am just curious as to why you seem to think your opinions are right and others are wrong. By what authority does one credit the bible, or by what authority does one justify the correctness of their beliefs over anothers? You speak of truths, but have not back this up with evidence (same as others have).
I do not fear death nor eternity as I live my life as I am supposed to. Those who commit no crimes have no fear of judgements.Why would I need to cast a stone? I am not nor do I condemn anyone... Can you say the same?
Lighten up. You claimed to be blameless in your post.
No. I said I live as I am supposed to.
But, I am not willing to accept blame for something that is beyond my control either.
And my very last statement is in reference to those who live in fear of the judgement day. There should be nothing to fear if one is living according to "God's" word as is claimed by many.But of course.
You have a nice day as well.
I’m glad you are thinking. There are actually many what would appear to be contradictions in the bible, like more than a hundred. The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). I will not go into a long drawn out explanation of the passages you state as being contradictory, but will explain a couple so you see the pattern. Some are very foolish like “Should we follow our own hearts ?” If the reader would read the passage in entirely they find that God is giving us a warning, that if we follow our own hearts and do what we want to do, he will judge us for it. God does not tempt anyone. Genesis 2:1 if you take the time to study some Hebrew you would find that the word translated as temp (hon nacah) has the sense to test. God was testing Abraham. Should we make graven images? The answer is no, and it is sin to put anything ahead of God. When God told his people to make things, this was not related to making idols. Exodus 32:14 talks about Regret, not a changing of mind. We often regret having to discipline our children, but do it regardless. Regret means to feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that has happened or been done, esp. a loss or missed opportunity). Once again when translating from other languages you will always find seemingly errors or contradictions.
I read you profile and found some sad things. You believe something yourself and have no reason to believe your right? You state you focus on personal fulfillment, not on whose religion is right? The fact that you believe something, also says someone is wrong. What if I am right? God will return and judge us all, and there is a literal Hell for those who reject Jesus Christ as Saviour. No amount of “works” or religion will or how good you are will be able to save you from eternity in Hell. Who is right? If you can find another Book written and inspired by God by 40 different authors over 1600 years…..good luck with that. The bible is the only reasonable explanation as to why we are here, not a bang from nothing.I don't claim I am right and others are wrong. I simply have my beliefs and others have theirs.
I happen to hold a PHD in Biblical Studies, so yes, I know the bible in both Hebrew and in Greek.
But, if we are to use the orginal meanings for one or two words, then we should do that with the whole bible, which many who follow do not. Many pick and choose what they wish to "interprete" as it fits their "belief" and turn right around and use the opposite "interpretation" to judge others that don't agree with their beliefs.
Example: Quoting the OT to comdemn those that follow a Gay lifestyle, but in turn justify divorce and re-marriage (unless unfaithful in marriage) when Jesus clearly states that it is a sin.
If one is to follow the Bible, then they need to follow the whole bible and not justify their not following as: "times have changed", "It doesn't mean that now" or "That is not the correct context".
I have said it before, I don't care how or what you believe, and it is not my place to say if you are right or wrong. Our beliefs might not be the same, but I don't say that how or what you believe is "Sad". I don't insult people for their beliefs. But, if someone claims certian beliefs, then I expect them to live thier lives as such and not be a hypocrite about it, all the while condemning others for thier beliefs._________________________
Ya Ti Kanis? Hárika ya tin gnorimía.
Apo pou eisai?
.......
Shalom na'im me'od
Ma shelomkha? Ma nishma?
meayin ata?
sheyihiye lach yom na'im
Always good to see you Deborah. I am doing well. Same ol same ol around my area (Virginia).
You know your hubs is what got me interested in this site. I forget what I was looking up at the time, but one of your hubs popped up and I've been ghosting around ever since.
I am sincerely sorry if I offend anyone. But I have to remain honest, when one's afterlife is concerned. People lived by the Law and were held accountable by following Laws in the old testiiment. Jesus changed all that when he did away with the law and provided a way of escape from condemnation. Jesus defeated death when he died and rose again as a random for our sins. The work has been done and that is why we cannot earn our salvation. Much like when you face the judge,for let's say stealing. A penalty has to be paid and in within the old covenant you paid for it with a price. Jesus came in and told the judge that he will take,and pay the price in full. God will not tolerate sin, and so what the law could not do, by giving up his son to die in your place, we are free from condemnation.
I care for people that are lost. Without Jesus, you will be lost and will spend eternity in hell. The gospel speaks of Love and we are commanded to love one another. Because of what he did for me, I want to serve him alone. And when one becomes a Christian God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us live right. You are loved by God. He wishes no one to be lost. We have been given free will to choose, as he did not make robots.
You do not have peace, I know that, and when you lay in bed and have time to think, you know your not at peace. How can you be if you believe something you do not know is true. Everyone is free to believe what they believe???? so what does happen after you die? the bible is the only reasonable explanation as to how we got here. the Bible does not contradict or does it speak different for others. The gospel is very clear. John 3:16 says for God so loved the world he GAVE us his oly son, that Whosoever believes in him shall NOT pereish but have everlasting life. What a wonderful feeling when you are FREE. Not bound to Religion. It is all done! We just live freely and completely content. Every Religion is based on "works". No other Religious God has ever died for mankind. Every other religion demands something. Wow...to be free
_________________
The Old Testament speaks in MetaphorsThat's too simplistic.
The ten commandments are certainly not metaphors.
Book of Leviticus, and Exodus are not metaphors.____________________
The Ten Commandments are not Metaphors, I agree. I also did not say all of the OT was Metaphors. But there are lots. The two books you mentioned also have metaphors.
The Metaphors are not simplistic and many don't even understand when they have read something that refers to something else.
Thanks for your advice!
Maybe you ought now to read my profile, and find out who I am.
kittythedreamer,
You ask "Why do many Christians believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong?" - if Christians are Christians because they follow Christ, if they are Christ-ians, then, there is your answer. Many folks like to hold Christianity in disdain but assert they're fine with Jesus, they hate the exclusivism of Christianity but advance Jesus as loving everyone, etc - but it was Jesus who taught that He is the only way to God, that all others are liars, that no one comes to the Father except through Him, etc.
Christianity is not a chauvinistic, cultural-based, religion that is saying 'my religion is better than your religion', Christianity is saying 'here is the way God has prepared' . . . Jews are welcomed and called to Jesus, Muslims are welcomed and called to Jesus, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc. Christianity doesn't assert that it is right and Muslims are wrong, or that it is right and Hindus are wrong, etc - Christianity asserts that all the ideas men have come-up with are wrong, that God has revealed Himself and revealed His truth and that that alone is the real, right, truth.
I understand it still seems to come to the same end to many, but I think you are looking at it culturally and Christianity is looking at it eternally . . . it's not about what seems fair or friendly, it's not about every culture getting due respect, it's not about God taking our best effort and being satisfied with our sincerity, etc - it's about the real, actual, eternal truth, and Christianity, authentic Christianity, is not a religion at all it is merely a recounting of the historic record, it is a pointing to an event that happened 2,000 years ago, it is abandoning all the religious ideas of men and recognizing God's revelation of Himself and His truth.
MickeySrOne should be tolerant enough to appreciate others also; but there is no harm if one gives reasons and arguments for one believes truthful; one should be open minded.
the reason christians are doing that is the same reason that everyone else is doing it!
Cause everyone else is doing the same thing, and we are all doing it if we wanted to be honest with ourselves. We would admit that!
Everybody is keeping up with what we think the Jonses is doing.
Problem is; .... we are wrong ... cause the Jonse's ain't doing what we think they are "A" doin! OOPS! we need to re think it!. ... "IF" we are trying to keep up with somebody else?????? We ain't doing it right.
Edit ... OOPS .... how did I get on this thread ??Why the religions are considered as a trouble maker in this beautiful World ?
The founder of every religions convinced and try to identify himself as a true massanger of God. Unfortunately God is invisible and I do not know, why God hesitate to appear or scare to talk with us. Due to that invisibility , every religion do get chance to continue his doctrine to deceive us as much as they can. It's a wonder that every religion claim that heaven is for them.
Every believer of every religion will go to heaven. Please , believe me and
create no conflict, hate, war any more. Do continue your believe and let to do other to do the same. Escalate love and love can only deflating.This is not true, and real Christians do not preach this, but here is the deal. Before Jesus came to earth, human souls did not go to heaven. There was no place for them and God more or less told Jesus "whoever you can get to join the Jesus club can go to heaven with you". So when Jesus ascended, He told them He was going to prepare a place for them. I am not getting preachy here, but I dont want to get it twisted. He said, "No one has entered the kingdom of heaven except the one who came from heaven- The Son of Man" (John 3:13) and it says "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."(John 3:3)
There are other places around heaven for souls to go, they will exist no matter what. But if you want to get in the club VIP, get baptized!! With all the good things awaiting you, why WOULDN'T you want to believe? Is being loved by Jesus such a bad thing that you wouldn't want to know what that feels like?
All these people with their Atheistic views and wanting to oppose God, with their rebellious " its cool to be evil" attitudes. Is there anything cool about being left somewhere alone, and in total darkness out in space somewhere forever?? All because you wanted to be cool on earth for a couple years? Im not saying I know for a fact...but what if it turns out that Jesus is right? I mean here is a clue to me...the timeline of the whole frigging world is based on the mans life and death. Am I making any sense?
It is Christians, Muslims and think Jews also I think, all coming out of the same place. They are all monotheistic. Having but one god, you get to exploit in all manner of ways, those that have some other.
Maybe it is because of the unknown. The religions you list above aren't as strictly structured like Christianity, Islam and Catholicism. Here they pray, go to church or the mosque on certain days. Do their duties to the church and try to bring others to the religion. You don't see Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, or Native Americans on college campuses handing out the bible like I've seen several different Christian churches do. Having faith isn't found through recruitment.
Very true, but that is because these other folks who don't proselytize don't feel that they need to force their beliefs on others...they feel in many cases that if people find their way to those paths that it is even more worthwhile and enlightening. Thanks, amanley!
Nope. Jews don't. Judaism explicitly states that Judaism works for Jews, but is not for everyone, and that all the world's righteous share a place in the World to Come.
___________________
You are wrong about the Jewish people, as we don't care how you worship.
We also discourage people converting.
And we do not think we are the only ones of God.
''''
A lot of Christians believe in God as a trinityDespite the lack of the "Holy Trinity" being mentioned anywhere in their bible.
______
Yes, I agree. There is no Trinity_____
No there isn't.
I know the scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, and EnglishThe Trinity. When your done I can give you more to read.
Isaiah 48:16 "Come near to Me, listen to this: from the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there, and now Adonai-Yehovah has sent Me and His Spirit." [Indication of the Son and the Holy Spirit being a person & the Trinity] (John 18:20, Jesus said this referred to Him; John 13:19, 14:29)
Matthew 3:16-17 "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’" (Luke 3:21-22)
Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’"
Top of Page
Luke 3:21-22 "Now it came about when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also was baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.’" (Matt 3:16-17, Isaiah 48:16)
John 1:32-34 "And John gave testimony saying, ‘I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven and He remained upon Him. And I did not know Him, but the one who sent me to baptize in water, that One said to me, ‘On whom you see the Spirit coming down upon and remaining, this is the one baptizing in the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen, and witnessed that this is the Son of God."
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of Me."
John 16:13-15 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you."
1 Corinthians 12:4-6 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
Galatians 4:6 "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Ephesians 2:18 "For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father."
Ephesians 4:4-6 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
Top of Page
Ephesians 5:18-20 "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father."
1 Peter 1:2 "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Jude 20-21 "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."
Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God [Elohim, !yhiloa>], is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of Your kingdom.’"
Psalm 45:6 "Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever, a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom." (Jesus is Elohim)
2 Timothy 1:2 "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." (The Father is God)
Philippians 2:10-11 "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is aAdonai, to the glory of God the Father." (From Isaiah 45:21-23. Jesus is Yehovah)
Isaiah 45:21-23 "Declare and set forth your case; indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yehovah? And there is no other Elohim besides Me, a righteous El and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am El, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance." (Phil 2:10-11, Jesus is Yehovah)
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God [qeo;" h\\n oJ logo"]. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (Jesus is God)
John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (This means that the appearances of Yehovah God in the O.T. are not the Father, but Jesus-Yehovah, Genesis 18:1, because no one has ever seen the Father)
Genesis 18:1 "Now Yehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day." (Jesus appeared to him, John 1:18)
Acts 5:3-4 "But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.’" (The Holy Spirit is God)
Top of Page
Isaiah 40:13-18 "Who has directed [Spirit-Yehovah, hw:hy]Aj'Wr] Ruach- Yehovah, Or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, and informed Him of the way of understanding?. . . . To whom then will you liken El? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?" (The Holy Spirit is Yehovah)
Isaiah 64:8 "But now, Yehovah, You are our-Father, we are the clay, and You our potter; and all of us are the work of Your-hand." (The Father is Yehovah)
John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. This One was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (Jesus is God in the flesh)
Colossians 1:15-18 "And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Jesus is Yehovah-Creator)
Hebrews 1:3 "And He is the reflected-brightness of His glory and the exact-image of His essence, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Jesus is God)
Job 33:4 "Ruach-Elohim has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (The Holy Spirit is Elohim)
Job 26:13 ""By His Spirit [j’Wr] the heavens are made-brightly-beautiful [hr;p]vi]; His hand has pierced the fleeing serpent." (The Holy Spirit is Creator-Yehovah)
1 Thessalonians 1:10 "and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come." (The Father raises from the dead)
John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (Jesus raises from the dead)
John 11:25-26 "I am the Resurrection and the Life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die." (Jesus raises from the dead)
Romans 8:11 "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (The Holy Spirit raises from the dead)
1 Kings 8:27 "But will Elohim indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!" (The Father is everywhere)
Matthew 28:20 "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Jesus is everywhere)
Top of Page
Psalm 139:7 "Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" (The Holy Spirit is everywhere)
2 Corinthians 6:16 "Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (The Father dwells in us)
Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
1 John 2:23 "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
2 John 1:9 "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (Jesus dwells in us)
Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come into him, and will dine with him, and he with Me."
Colossians 1:27 "To whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
2 Corinthians 13:5 "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?"
John 14:17 "That is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." (The Holy Spirit indwells us)
1 Corinthians 6:19 "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?"
1 John 3:20 "God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." (The Father knows all things)
John 16:30 "Now we know that You know all things." (Jesus knows all things)
1 Corinthians 2:10-11 "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." (The Holy Spirit knows all things)______
None of those verses mention a Trinity.
None of them imply a trinityWell we know how you read then. John 14:7. Is spoken to you. I will pray for you so you find Christ
___________________
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
I don't want you to pray for me.
I came out of the Christian church years ago..
Here you are again...if I don't believe as you do, according to you I do not know God
Just as the title of this threadNo not according to me. According to God you are not saved. And as a person saved by grace, knowing what happens to those lost, I have a burden for those lost souls. I will pray for you
---------------------
Give me one scripture where Yahshua (Jesus to you) says we are saved by Grace8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
What did the thief on the cross do to earn salvation. ?Yes written by Paul. If he is wrong how much more is wrong with the bible. Jesus did not write what he said did he? And how would you know if it was written accurate. If the bible is corrupt , then all of it is corrupted.
The only place I saw "trinity" was in your editorials, which was precisely my point. 90% of the bible is subject to interpretation. I have been to churches who profess one interpretation only to cross the street to a sister church (of the same religion) and have a different interpretation touted as the "Word of God".
The fault is with the religion. Religion is manufactured by man. In the Bible, nothing is mentioned of membership drives, only "witnessing", which is far different from the wholesale campaign to increase congregation size.
You cannot be a witness to what you have neither seen nor experienced.
Further evidence of the lack of trinity (beyond the absence of the word) is John 5:26. Should the doctrine be taken at "face value", one would have to get over the ability of one to create the other, numerous scriptures of God proclaiming his singularity and the game of telephone which brought you the book you read.Please explain the 189 verses and words of Jesus that say he is God and the tree or one.
Sorry my keypad kind of small, but seriously, the entire bible is filled with this truth.
Jesus never claimed to be God. He said he was within God and God was within him. And he said that every person could have the same if they only followed his message. Jesus taught the message of how to get to "GOD" and to get there one only had to follow his teachings. The only time Jesus ever even said anything about being God was when he was being accused of saying he was God by the Sanhedrin and he used the Psalms for his defense ("does not your scriptures say, We are all Gods")
In the beginning was the word,and the word was WITH GOD,and the word WAS GOD. And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:1 Jesus then is God. Read John 8:24. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”.
Read your bibleSure I will add one one john10:30-33. (first part of verse). I and the father am one.
Read your bible some more. I am only in John, I think I already showed dozens of places in bible that are very clear.I was hoping you would use that verse for your argument.
Read the first chapter of Genesis. As the first thing God did was Speak and this spoken word became the Light of the word (Jesus). Therefore, God created Jesus first long before he was ever born of a woman. That is what "John" was talking about. Why else would God need to create light twice? He spoke and light appear and was seperated from darkness (chaos) and then on the Fourth day he created the Greater and Lesser lights of the sky (Sun and Moon). God didn't actually "Make" anything until day two, when he made the firmament. Up until that time he only spoke.
Continue reading the rest of John Chapter one and you will see that nothing was created except by and through the Light. Verse two says that "Jesus" was with God in the beginning. If Jesus the man was the Word (Voice) of God, Then he had to be with him at all times he was speaking to man.
I hold a PHD in Biblical Studies (Focus in the NT). I know and understand the bible very well.
God is God. Not a trinity. Jesus was just the name of the body that contained God's word made flesh. The death on the Cross, Nothing more than the death of the Old covenant (Word) with man(Hebrews), to give life to the New covenant(Word) with man (All people). So we have a period of three days that the word of God was not available to man. And since Jesus (word of God) now "sits" at the right hand of God, Gods word is no longer with man again until his return. That is the reason God sent his spirit down. To comfort man, until his voice would once again be heard by man. And the Holy Spirit, still just God. Again I refer you to Genesis Chapter one verse two. There is nothing in the Bible that says God is anything more than a spiritual being. A spirit and a voice.
Are you a trinity? Your physical body, soul and voice(breath) all separate parts that can exist without the other? Yet you have all three inside of only one person, they are not considered separate enities unto themselves.That is the best, and most detailed, explanation I've seen for the whole thing here in these forums. I'm not surprised it was posted by you. It's a beautiful and awe inspiring story, when put in its proper context.
Unfortunately, your PHD is trumped by those who have not really read the Bible (OT or NT) and believe in whatever has been taught them since childhood.
Good effort on your part, but it falls on deaf ears.Yes I know. One would think that it would be appreciated. So far the best responses come from mostly the non-believer side of the house.
<shrugs> Maybe someone will get some use from it, even if not the ones I am actually posting with.Good to hear a confession.
There are none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.
Or should that be
Whatever.
Of course you are going to get non believers agreeing, that's why they are non believers.
The truth is if we are to read the NT and omit the teachings of the OT then we take things out of context. The two must agree.
Jesus was not around at the beginning, because, obviously, he was born 4,000 plus years after. Jesus was not unmade, pressed into a zygote and stuffed into mary. Gods word was not separated from his vocal cords and stuffed into mary.
When Jesus is termed as the word of God this is jewish representation. Its like someone who takes a message signed by the author and expounds upon the message. The messenger is representing the author of the message and the messengers words are to be taken as that of the author of the message. He represents the author. Like an ambassadorship. Its not a literal voice of God wrapped in flesh because we know Gods spirit was fully in Jesus, thus making jesus words authentic representation of the fathers words.
john 1:1 in the begining was the word - yes God spoke.
And the word was with God - with, preposition, we have 108 prepositional words, pick one lol... the original says 'toward' which abstractly means in favor: the mothers love was toward her daughter. Gods word is the same as God which the next verse clarifies.
And the word was God - God cannot be separate from his word(s). Whatever God says, comes to pass, it is truth <-- truth in the jewish perception is light.
So really all verse one is saying is: in the beginning God spoke his words and his words are Him.
John 1:2 'it was always that way with God'.
john 1:3 All things were made by God
john 1:4 in God was life and in God (agreed by the OT) was the light (truth) of all people.
then we get into john the baptist.
john1:10 Jesus was in the world (jewish society) the world (jewish society) was made (impacted) by him. [not created in the beginning, we are in the midst of a progression.. God, john the baptist, jesus....]
First Jesus was in the world, does it make sense that he then made or created the world after being in the world? or that the world (earth) knew him not? How can a planet not know him? This whole verse speaks of Jesus ministry in Israel.
So I don't know what you are trying to say
Where did you get your phd from?
Pertaining to trinity, you said body, soul and voice. This is not what bible teaches. We need again to resource the OT to find a definition for soul. The Platonic concept of soul is not biblical. There is no soul that detaches from our body at death. Our body is our soul, that is what our soul is, is our body including the thoughts, in short, animated flesh. Nephesh - look it up. At best we are a duality but only after God puts his spirit in us, until then, we are spiritually dead and that is because there is only one spirit and that is God. Man has no "spirit" unless you want to attach this to attitude. Kinda like the spirit of the world is changing or he has an angry spirit, which, metaphorically, is okay, but it does not speak of accurate bible definition.
again, where did you get your phd from?I obtained my PHD from Regents University...And you got yours where?
Your post said pretty much the same thing as mine. Worded differently, but the same message.
No where does it say The light God made was Jesus. Jesus has always been And always said that he was the great I AM. Anyone can get the letters PDRTGF FREDDT added to their name, but without the work of the holy spirit they will not find God. I read the first part of genesis and find no mention of Jesus.......bible scholars are accurate. I do however believe Jesus has always been. There is One God, having three distinct persons. It is this mystery we refer to as the trinity. I kind of look at it like a man being a husband, a plumber, and a father. Three characters, but one man.
The first Chapter of John says that The word was the light of the world and the darkness connot comprehend the light and that John the Baptist was to bear witness to this light. The light John bore witness to is referencing Jesus. The darkness and the light of the world and the Word (voice of God) is talked about in Gen 1:2-5. God didn't create the Sun or moon until the fourth day. So what is this light that came to be when God spoke in Gen 1:3 if it isn't the light of the world? This is the light that was not comprehended by the darkness, just as John made reference too. This first act of God which was speaking is what cause the Light to appear. God's Voice (word) is the Light as decribed in Genesis chapter one. And according to John, this voice and Light is Jesus. This voice(word) and this Light were with God from the very beginning, which means "Jesus" has been with God from the very beginning.
And once again, the first light that is talked about in Genesis was not made. It was God's voice. It says "Let there be light", not " God made light".
Husband, Plummer, and Father, yes three persona's of one man. But this is not the same as Father, Son and a Spirit. And person cannot be their own son. It is not possible.
And by the way, you say the Scholars are correct...Since I hold a PHD, that includes me as one of the scholars.
According to Jesus, the Holy Spirit is a Comforter. God is found through faith, belief in and through Jesus, not through the works of anyone including the Holy Spirit. Even Paul says that it is through faith and not works ( following the old laws).
________________________
In Greek the word Λέγω was translated as “word” a Noun But the word λόγος pronounced Logos means “said, logos, reason.” and Λέγω said legō=means “I say”
The Greek word for “word” is λέξη said léxi̱
It is where the English words Logic and Lexical and Lexicon come from.
So this is talking about the Voice of God and is not saying Yahshua and God are the same person. Yahshua was the voice of God.
Genesis 1:26
"Let US make man in OUR image": Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that the Father was talking to Jesus.The trinity doctrine was not invented in its present form until the 4th century, was unknown to the Apostles, and therefore is an invalid doctrine of men.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Isaiah 45:6
........ from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”
If God is omnipresent then the Holy Spirit is a term to describe His presence when manifest upon the Earth.
If God is omnipresent then Yahshua (aka Jesus) is a term to describe His presence when manifest upon the Earth in the fleshIt is truthful that OT Bible like Jesus never believed the Trinity; it is invention of the church, the anti-christ .
There was evidence at the time of baptism of Jesus when he heard the voice of God and experienced the spirit of God decend on him. Not the fourth century. Where do people come up with this nonsense. Read the bible. Realize that the trinity is actually three distinct persons manifested as one. As a mire human we do come fully understand this, this is why we trust his word given to us. People always try to discredit his word with stupid human wisdom like "I" know best. Stop using the old "I think it was like this" reasoning .
The reason we can't fully understand the trinity doctrine is because it makes no sense as the Church made it up. Something so important would have been explicitly taught in the bible if it were true. The fact you only know of it by interpretation and inference should tell you something.
By the way, even the Catholic Church recognises that 1 John 5:7 was added in the 15th Century.-- that Jesus never believed trinity doctrine and never taught it.
I agree with the above post.When Jesus says he is of God, and the two are as one, they are one. When Jesus forgives sins, and only God forgives Sin they are one. We we read in Genesis "Let us create the heavens and the earth" "We" means more than one, but there is only one God....therefore Jesus was there. The Holy Spirit was given to Christians to help us live a Godly life, provide Spiritual gifts and convict the World of Sin. There is ONE GOD! He is Jesus,Spirit and God in one. If you cannot see this, is because you are human like all of us. The Bible says so!
one God but three offices.
The personalization of the holy spirit is something that cannot happen. The spirit of God is holy. It is another name of God to represent an official function. God has many names and all describe some facet of God. jehovah-jireh = god provides, etc.
When God spoke out of heaven and the holy spirit descended upon Jesus does not show a trinity. Visual proof was necessary of the holy spirit, just like in Acts 2 during Pentecost - shall we say God is a duality now?
God as father is good and logical and teaches us much but again, it is the office of father. A capacity of work.
A man can be a husband, welder, father, uncle, granddad, mason, but these are not separate entities. One person and many official functions.
Please give the reference for benefit of the members.
Which is the entire point of this discussion.
Read the wiki on the Trinity Doctrine. That is where the 4th century comes into play. And if you can find ONE instance of the words "Holy Trinity" in the Bible, please quote it.
About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".
- Emile Rposted 13 years ago
0The same reason some atheists do. Ego. Alpha types. Things like that.
Very good point with the ego and alpha types...I'll go with that answer. voted UP, Emile!
Kitty, I grew up in a Southern Baptist household (on my Mom's side). My Dad, however was into Eastern philosophy and mysticism and then turned to Scientology in the late 50's. In 1962, we moved to D.C. from West Texas so he could study at the main Scientology center there.
I wasn't interested, myself, until late in my teens (1967 onwards), but found Scientology quite effective spiritually and otherwise. When my Scientology studies interfered with my senior year high school studies, my near straight "A's" dropped to "D's" in English Lit. class, but some spiritual counseling right before mid-terms found me flying high on my studies. Result: I got the only "A."
After the 1970's (and a few full-blown miracles), I studied Buddhism. Later, I married a Thai Buddhist and studied with Tibetan Buddhists monks in Los Angeles. The marriage didn't last, but my studies in Buddhism continued.
In the late 90's, I started studying Judaism, Kabbalah and Taoism, learning a great deal of wisdom.
After 2005, I returned to Christianity. What a difference a few decades make, especially when receiving so much wisdom from other schools of thought.
I am finding that with my background in electronic engineering, art, computer science and software engineering, the Bible is starting to make sense. And there are some very interesting things hidden within it, especially in Genesis.
Some people in any religion (perhaps most) are full of ego (the master of this world), and despite their claim to heaven, they likely will never see it.
Heaven is a state of spirit. Gautama Siddhartha likely got it. Lao Tsu may have, too. Perhaps even Mohammed. I met a couple from Cambodia while I was living in Los Angeles. We became close friends for awhile, and her mother (who lived in Paris) had reached Buddhist Enlightenment, including a host of psychic abilities. Buddhists monks converged on Paris to interview her. They left convinced she had attained full spiritual wakefulness. But who are they to judge, if they had not yet attained it for themselves? Interesting.
Those who clamor for proof will never see heaven. They are still clinging to the continuity of physical reality -- their "security blanket."
Me? I'm still working on my "escape."Of course we all want to reach enlightenment, although I don't think I'm quite there. I have a few more lives (maybe more) to live (just my belief) before I reach total enlightenment or continue on to Heaven or the Summerland or whatever you want to call it. In my heart of hearts, I believe that god is god, no matter by what name or through whatever religion. As long as the person is striving to connect with god and trying to reach enlightenment so to speak, then I feel that god wouldn't turn them down because they called him/her by a different name. I simply can't believe that only one way is right...just never have been able to believe it. Thanks, you are quite intelligent and I respect your opinions wholeheartedly.
___________________________
According to the New Testament the name does matter.
Peter said
Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
The name is Yah. The one you call Jesus was really Yahshua.
Which contains God’s name..and he said he came in the Father’s name.
John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
The word hallelujah in Hebrew means “praise Yah”. Yah is a name and not the word God.
God in Hebrew is El
_______
Just my thoughtsWe must not get mixed up with what God we try to get close too. Your right in saying that the name does not matter as long as we pray to the same God. But wrong in saying it is good enough for each of us to pray to our own version of a God. Once again you are using verses of the bible with no understanding of the text it was written in. The rulers and elders of the people questioned Peter as to by what power or what name did they perform these miricles. Peter filled with the Holy Spirit answered the concerns of the rulers and elders in Acts 4, by stating in verse 12 that Salvation is found in no one else,(clear enough) for there is no other name given to mankind by which we must be saved. This is not even close to a argument your trying to create. Over in John 5 Jesus is challenging the jewish leaders that they were willing to accept the testimony of someone else, but not over his coming in his fathers name. (also proving Jesus was God as well). This says nothing about any name being good enough. Jesus was saying Jewish leaders accepted a different name, over his. So your verses prove one thing and that is Jesus, God and Holy Spirit are one and together make-up the Trinity. Also that only by Jesus’ name can we be saved. As for believing two different Gods as being O-kay? Slipery slop to Hell. You really show no evidence of having read any of the bible other than a few verses that suite your fancy.
Pay attention to verse 20.
Lu 12:16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
Lu 12:17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. (KJV)
________________________
I NEVER said it does not matter about the name, and I never said people can pray to their version of God!!!!
Are you hallucinating?
You can't understand me and you expect us to believe you understand scripture.
It is people like you that tarnishes people's reputation, saying they said things they didn't say.someone who believes part of the word of God, and discards other parts of the bible, have no credibility and their reputation can not get worse. As the Word of God is inspired by God himself I pray for God's mercy on those who think themselves as more wise than the creator hiimself
_________________
What has that got to do with you saying I said something I did not say???
What you said was a lie
All of the Bible is not the word of God. Paul was a liar too. But the tares were left with the seeds
Pray for yourself. God is the judge of us.If the bible has no credibility , then who cares about anything written in the bible. How do you know the words of Jesus are actually his words?
Jesus proved that He is the Son of God, giving Him the infallible authority to claim the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Jesus taught that the entire Bible, both the Old Testament (Matt 21:13, 26:31, 5:18 and Luke 4:27) and the New Testaments (John 14:24, 16:12-13) is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Since the gospels give an accurate and reliable record of what He taught, it has been established that the entire Bible is really the errorless and authoritative word of God. Not only can we believe everything in it, but it demands our obedience.
______________
The new testament didn't exist then.
Show me where Yahshua taught that (with scriptures not with opinions)I just did answer your question in another post. But may I add that many people remain blinded to such elementary spiritual things, like the Jews and only by God's work of the holy spirit will this change. I can tell you by your reactions that you have no peace and contentment in your life. Oh you may respond to that but, only you will answer to your spirit's condition. I can assure you that if the truth offends you? It is probably not in you. I sincerely pray for lost people that are searching but refuse to look at the answer.
Yes but the other post was for someone else, not you.
I've been a minister for many yearsI am sorry, but being a minister for many years will not save you, when God says I did not know you. Also the "other" post still spoke to you. Give your life up for Jesus and stop relying on your own effort
_______________
I never said the Bible has no credibility
Making up stuff again??You call Paul a liar and in conflict with Jesus. Bible can not be trusted. Come to know Jesus before it is too late
God's free gift of salvation is not dependent on the amount we pretend to know. Yielding to the holy spirit and putting our faith in Jesus alone will set us free
What if your born on some obscure island with no communication to the outside world?
Are those just easy wins for Satan? Why would Jesus do that?For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20
All those who believe in God and place their trust in him alone will be saved. It is our foolishness that allows Satan to deceive us into getting into all kinds of religious arguments. Religion is all about "man's reasoning". When you look into the amazing world God has created the more foolish man looks with all our crazy ideas. Hope this helps.___________________
I don't worship Idols.
Not his messengers only GodActually you are worshiping idols. Need to read your bible. All of it as a whole and stop looking for numbers that match your birthdate
______________
So the God of Israel, the Hebrew God is an idol? BlasphemerThe Bible is full of codes in numbers, words, and letters.
It is so that only those who truly seek God will understand.
Why do you think certain numbers are used over and over? 7, 10, 12, 40
The Bible is full of Metaphors, parables and a lot of codes.
Matthew 13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Matthew 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
IT IS GOD THAT KEEPS SECRETS AND THINGS HIDDEN
Matthew 13:35
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
_______________
So you were baptized by the Holy Ghost?
I can't wait to hear about the healings, exorcisms of demons, and miracles God has preformed through you.
Please share them with us.The purpose of the holy spirit is to convict the world concerning sin. The work of the holy spirit in a believer is to help him live a victorious life over sin. I pray that the spirit is at work right now in your life,and no comment or proof is needed on my part as this is all to the glory of God. After the goodbye you said last time, did you want to reopen our conversation?
____________________
You said you believe all the Bible
Mark 16:17-19
17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.Jesus teaches in John that as Christians with the holy spirit we will be able to do great things as your other verses say. It is important as Christians to understand that without God we can do nothing. John 15:5. So it is by the power of the holy spirit we are able to do God's work. Secondly we also understand that faith without works is dead. It is a natural response for true followers of Christ to have the evidences of the holy spirit at work in us. Galatians 5:22. Paul urges the saints to "walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work" (Col. 1:10). But we also recognize that it is not these works that save us, Ephesians 2:8-9. Jesus spent most of his life exposing the religious work of the religious leaders in his day, who placed burdens on the shoulders of people.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3
_____
So you admit, no healings and no miracles!Well when I add up my age in months ,days ,and years the number matches the number of men in davids army. That must be a miracle Lol.
_____________
I must consider the source.
Im dealing with someone of low intelligence
I don't add my birth date to the Bible
It must be awful to have a closed and fearful mind 
I can tell by the way you try to provoke people that you're not of God. There is no love in you.I agree entirely. It actually hurts me when people say that their faith shall never be taken away from them. They're basically just saying that they will continue to believe no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented.
It actually makes me embarrassed to be of the same species. And they say humans are intelligent? I beg to differ.
I will continue to pray for you as you have no peace. You have no idea what will happen after you die and your searching in vain for answers. You find no fulfillment in your religion and your grasping for straws. Your fine with what anyone wants to believe. In fact you even encourage people to find themselves by meditation,but when the truth is declared you fight it like Satan.
Turn to Jesus and he will set you freeYou dont need to believe in an old book to find peace. They say ignorance is bliss and in my opinion, religion is the breeder of ignorance.
You're not allowed to question god right? Why is that? Because there are no answers for that which is untrue?
Why do christians think everyone else is wrong?
Thousands of religions believe they are the only ones who are right.
Why?
Because they are told this by their book of course!"Thousands of religions..."
I'm sure you've made a very careful study of this, earnest...and you're not just trying to multiply your hatred of Christianity by, well, thousands.There are thousands of religions, there always will be as long as people try to run other peoples lives there will be some fanatic quoting his or her version of "the only true god"
Would you like to see a list?
I don't do hate.... a self defeating emotion.
Lying for jesus again are we?Yes, I'd like to call you on your bluff. Provide a list of religions that say they are the only one true religion, and point to their book for support. (Please do so off-site, since littering a forum thread with a list of "thousands" of religions won't be appreciated by most)
Use all your Jeebuses and Innits you want; I'm not a Christian (even though you seem to imagine that everyone who disagrees with you is).
And sorry, as much as you say that you're not consumed with hatred and that you simply don't believe in any religion, 90% of your presence is in the forum is to purge your past of being a persistent, proselytizing evangelical Christian (by being a persistent, proselytizing atheist)._____________________
There are 20000-23000 Christian denominations alone. Their book is the Bible alone and they discourage reading other religious books.
Most, not all, of these Christian religions believe they hold the truth
and their way is the only way to GodI doubt there are that many denominations.
There are that many congregations, and MORE.
Your assumption of each having their own truth, and others not, is also wrong.
I think you will find that fundamental doctrine is almost identical in most of these.
If a church is not founded on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, they are considered a sect.
That is about as fundamental as one needs to get. The rest is merely an expression of corporate focus.
IE, some focus on evangelism, some on teaching, some on worship, some on childrens ministry, some on missions etc. But Jesus Christ is the center if everything___________________________
This is from the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) of which he is the editor. Also, according to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities [U.N. Information Center, NY, 1989]). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer's book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox.no doubt mormon and the thousands of branches of catholicism were wrapped up in that too, as well as scientology and jehovahs witness, kabalists and karate schools
got a link?
I could not find it___________________
In This count it was only Christians..no Kabbalah or Jews in this Group
Better research before commenting. It's in a Book
And by the way
Kabbalah is not a religion
The Kabbalah is the Western world's take on Jewish Mysticism, and I am a JM
UPDATE
I found a website with excerpts from the World Christian Encyclopedia
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
beautifully said.. wonderful.
Its time to put to rest this false belief that every office (church) of a corporation (denomination) is a separate conflicting entity.As long as Christians, themselves, proclaim that other professed Christians are going to hell; I don't consider it far fetched to assume that they are of different sects. They are definitely conflicting entities.
that doesn't make sense
more info neededHey, you stole my line.
But seriously. What more info would you like? At what point, exactly, did you find yourself lost?as with all of your posts:
the beginning.
Were those christians already in denominations and did you take them out of their denomination to make your point? or are you offering up new denominations that are not accounted for? or are you loosely defining christianity to include obvious cults? or have you lately been at a christian finger pointing dinner for charity? or is this just a half baked little thought up imagination that you thought might have some weight to it if read by dummies?
Do you consider that christians who say other christians are going to hell to be conflicting entities? Were we talking about conflicting entities? or did you throw that word in just to slip by some vague notion of something to make it seem pertinent?
It seems to me that if christians are saying others are going to hell there could be:
a good reason for that
this is not conflict but agreement of hell
of course we know there is no hell so whats your point.
Can we find these christians? or do we need to shave your head, bore a hole and have a peeky?
It is the only God inspired book, written over 1600 years by 40 or so authors. All in agreement
that it is god inspired book is mere belief like belief by muslims that quran is god inspired book and like jews believe about their book...
If you actually did some reading you would find almost always you have people from other religions coming to christ, and not the other way around. You would also find that the bible is the most logical explanation why we are here. I would strongly advise you do some reading before it is to late. For onto us it is appointed for us to die, and after this the judgment
Yes your right big bang is more believable ? ??????
Were you born? Then you have why you are here. Any other explanation is pathetic.
Interesting that you have written "what is life's purpose". So why write a pathetic article? (your words not mine)The fact is every human who has ever lived has a inward desire to know his creator. We do have a higher calling and purpose in life.
why am i here is not relevant.
mum and dad have sex. out pops a baby.
why am i here?
irrelevant
might as well ask
how did i get here?
its called procreation, intercourse.
There is no why
whats important though is
what you do with your life
@korky10 it seems u are bit out of touch with world these days....there are more people going out of Christianity than coming in...secondly have u read quran or torah or gita?...if yes then only u can claim that it has most logical explanation...then come how do u justify ur claim...so first question have u read quran or gita or torah?
If you have had a apple to eat, do you need to eat a banana to find out for sure you had a apple? Secondly Muslims live by works. How do you know you have done enough? This is why so many are willing to die or kill because in their opinion dieting for their faith is the altimate "work". This is not logical. Jesus taught us to love one another and our wives are to be treated like God treats his church. God loves you and provided a way of salvation that relieves you of the weight of having to do something to be saved. If you love someone you want them to freely com to you out of their own free will and not obligation. So to answer you question I have only read enough of Quran to know that it is not a apple
Actually those with a open mind who have no preferences to either the bible or quran find the Quran is filled with not only conflicts, but conflicts their own teaching (or lack of). Mohammond was illiterate but somehow said it was corrupted . How bout the use of "us and them"who created the heavens, but they say there is only one God? Why is Arabic the only language in heaven, but the Quran having Hebrew and Greek words? If your serious and want to study the quaran it only takes a little while to see that you are in dilution if you can't see the errors
After an eternity, an invisible fairy waves his magic hand and creates a universe, further creating a human man from dust and a woman from a rib of the dust-made man, later a talking snake, the professor and Mary Anne, here on Gilligan's Island.
Yeah, that's a perfectly logical explanation.Well then you need to accept another interpretation, something that you can accept. Is that not why you are here? To discuss and learn and... oh i forgot its you, you just want to sniper shoot.
Anyway... It is very interesting that the first man is said to come from the earth and the woman from his rib, aside from the common understanding of why she was formed from the rib, do we not think it unusual that God did not just make her from the earth also? Why did she have to come from his rib? So you can see another layer to the puzzle and perhaps how some versions of this story and other stories might contain a layer 1, layer 2, layer 3.... each correct but each different.
The same with the talking snake which is layer 1 and there might be a layer 2, layer 3...
You see God does not force people to do anything. There is no force, in fact God is very careful not to force us because of that whole need to choose ideology. Those who read a snake and think yah that's cool and have no further need to dig deeper or ask God, 'what do you mean by this?', so to those, God will allow them to be. But to others who cannot let the issue of what was that darned snake, lord... and they keep knocking will receive.
What i am trying to say here is that, God is talking to his people, so very very long ago, who were in Egypt, bombarded by Egyptian philosophies, religion, way of life, etc... exposed to it all for centuries. So if God chooses to tell them a story that draws from their Egyptian experience, who the heck are you to shout Gilligans' island.
Gilligan?
I hope that is logical enough for you.
_______
The Bible says what?
I was responding to a post on how many Christian Denominations there are
If their way has been the truthful way; they should have not split into 20000-23000 Christian denominations . They think that "Jesus was the way" yet they don't believe what Jesus used to believe and they don't do what Jesus did; they don't follow Jesus for sure.
How many denominations are there of Islam, Paar?
How many splits does it take to nullify a religion?There are two major ones that I know of..But the seperation not based on beliefs of the religion, but of who should have taken "Charge" after the death of Muhammed. One branch thought that the the kin of Muhammed should have taken authority, while the other branch felt it should have been those who were the "most wise" in the muslim tradition. (Something to that effect anyways)
just speculating here, but would perhaps their, 'kill all those who convert away' philosophy account for lack of splits? Is this not at least equal to the inquisition mindset of catholicism?
and i thought i already showed that this huge number of denominations is not accurate.Could be, Who knows? I think there is one or two other minor branches as well, but they aren't recognized.
I was only posting about the Islamic faith in this post. I said nothing about Christianity. And we don't agree about the denominations, so there is no sense in arguing the points anymore. You (and some) see it one way, I (and others), see it another way. Statistics say one thing and opinions/theories say another. Bottom line is not all "Christians" agree, one denomintation or many. If there was only one "denomintation" of Christian faith, I would think(opinion), that they would all agree. And while I agree that all who claim to be Christian, aren't really Christian, the fact remains that they claim the title and are therefore representing the faith to those who are not of the Christian belief.
I would think (opinion again), it would better benefit the Christian faith, for the "true" believers to get all Christians on the same page, prior to trying to convert the "non-believers". If all Christians agree, it would offer less ammunition for the non-believer to use as an argument against the faith. As it stand now, most of the non-believers can clearly see, and use, the division of the "beliefs" as a reason to debunk the Christian belief as a whole.It doesn't debunk anything though, its empty ammo from a half cocked gun.
There are many types of mathematicians, architects, mayors, philosophers, chefs, scientists, etc and they are never referred to as not being of their trade and many of them disagree with each other as well concerning their ways. There are better architects than other architects but they are still architects. The mathematician who is involved with pure math is considered a mathematician. The mathematician who is involved in abstract math is also a mathematician. Does one debunk the other? Is mathematics destroyed because there are many different persuasions?
Not at all.
So it does not matter how many denominations there are.
As to the survey which led to the conclusion of so many different denominations the info is completely inaccurate. All Baptists follow the Baptist creeds, all Pentecostals follow their creeds, all denominations bearing the same name whether it be Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc all follow their denominational creeds. So they are not different at all except in geographic location. A Greek Baptist church follows the same creeds as a North American Baptist church or they would not be Baptist. There may be a few cultural differences but that's culture not creed.
As the survey plainly states and i have posted a print screen of the evidence, for instance, the catholic church in armenia follows the same creed as the catholic church in romania, hence, one denomination and as i have plainly stated - two offices, but alas, two counts on the survey.
As to the different names of denominations its the same as different names of mathematical branches. They are descriptive of the study. In the beginning with Christianity the Early Church had its creeds.
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
And over the course of time everybody and their cat had a belief system going on. Some thought Christ was a mystic who had strange powers, some thought Christ was just a prophet, an ordinary man. I think that over the course of the millennium there should be so so so so very many many more denominations, but when we strip away the obvious false teachers (also included in the survey) and we remove the [pardon me] catholic and the pagan denominations and we ignore the different countries to which each baptist and Methodist, etc church come from, we see a completely and more accurate survey of how few denominations there really are in ORTHODOXY.
Also the evolution of the church is dependant upon who has the guts to make points of their revelations. Luthers thesis was bold and God blessed its success. Martin luther king made headway also in being very bold. The baptists discovered an importance in baptism and branched off according to that belief. Pentecostals also had to split because words of edification and tongues are not accepted in baptist churches, for obvious reasons, lol. The same thing between the synagogues in Israel teaching Moses, the Christians were not getting fed what they believed in, Christ, so the church was birthed. There is nothing wrong with denominations, so long as the core beliefs of Christianity are intact. There will always be blessed people of God who get revelations about truths but do they have the gusto to stand up for what they believe in? Could the church be more evolved than it is? Thats the only criticism that is important. Could the church have more denominations because more revelational truths have been discovered? Is baptism in water replaced by the baptism in the Holy Ghost and do we need a church to get this out to the masses? How much gusto will it take to bring on the next truth and thereby a separation?
We must also account for some 'new age' names, the churches that do not want to be part of denomination. Here in Duncan, BC we have a quite good church called "City Gate". I dunno why but this church did not want to be lumped in with any denomination. The core beliefs of Christ are maintained and I would call them Orthodox.
So ya see, the world just reads this survey at blank face value as they do much of everything else Christian and then they begin to point fingers which is their usual style but nothing is debunked except the one trying to debunk. So other than this survey as being yet another cheap shot to shift their personal responsibility onto something else, it holds no water under proper scrutiny.I didn't say that it did or didn't debunk anything. I said that it was used by the non-believer as a way to debunk.
And the other things you mentioned aren't being used as a religious belief system in which they claim some will be "saved" while others "burn in hell".
I ask that you read my posts carefully as I am not disputing certain points you have made. Only pointing out how certain points are being used by others. Right or wrong, the points are being used to support the argument or debate at hand.
Statistics on the amount of denomintations are being used. It really doesn't matter if you, I or anyone else agrees with those numbers, the numbers are there and the "non-believer" will use those "facts" to support thier side of the debate, as you use your interpretation to support yours.If you didn't take things so personally you might have said something nice
frikin pagansI didn't realize that I said something mean? And I don't take things personally. I am not the one who insults others just because we have different thoughts, opinions or beliefs.
Another low point in Christian posting. I'm not surprised it came from you.
If we all got on the same page ......you would have RELIGION. The essential doctrines do not change between believers. How Believers live in respect to how the holy spirit directs their lives, may differ. There are many non-essential ideas that are not heresies. Mormons, JW's and Catholic etc. are heretical, and not Christian although they claim to be.
Ego is the enemy, not religion, @Troubled.
But do you love your own self-righteousness too much to allow such an idea?
Ego nullifies a great deal, and you are so good at it.
I'm also pretty good with ego, but heck, if you like it so much, you can have mine, too. But then, I wouldn't wish my ego on anyone.Nonsense. There are lots of people with egos who don't believe or go around saying Jesus opened up a boulevard of cars so I could get to where I was going, for example.
I wouldn't wish your religion on anyone.Ego doesn't even exist, its just another useless name to a useless concept
Kinda like ghost.
Ego is nothing more than self
God wants us to get rid of self
any path that endorses self is not of God
deal with it.So ego does exist as self. It is tagged as such for the benefit of the seer, the self.
______________________
I agree.
and
You can't just believe someone existed, you have to be like himWhat if there were a separate denomination for each individual? Each would listen to the quiet, still voice within and keep searching for answers rather than thinking they've already arrived because of their chosen sect or denomination.
Ego would have us cling to one way or another and to holding that way over other's heads as if to say, "I'm better than you."
Too many feel that they need do nothing else and then lapse into selfish and egotistical ways rather than maintaining humility.
Me, I'm still searching and continue to learn. Ego needs all the ammunition possible to fight it.
In fact, the Bible is why Christians claim all other religions wrong:
John 3:5
John 3:18 (the T-shirts are not big enough)
John 14:6
Just to name a few.BINGO! yOU GOT IT. The Bible is why all Religion is wrong.
___________
Yahshua never spoke of himself, he spoke of God.
He was God's voice
John 12:49
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 14:10
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.Including the Christianity practiced today.
There is little wrong with the Christianity practiced today. Yes it is a long way from the Early Church doctrines, which is not too surprising, considering the smorgasbord of belief systems we have today, it is a murky journey indeed to find the right one.
But in the church are people who enjoy and love God even if they have only a faint glimpse of him. And this is what God is looking for.
Recall he only asked us to believe in him and the rest of what God is doing in the christians life, is between them and God.
Finger pointing or making generalizations or using the church for an excuse is beside the point.
We can all accept God and make our own journey. The closer we get to him the more accurate our doctrine will be and the better show our life will be onto others.
Doesn't matter how many denominations there are - find one and enjoy it.
Doesn't matter how we interpret genesis 3, that will probably not even be a question in the afterlife.
Doesn't matter about a lot of things: how many chakras we have opened, how many times we did the rosary, what we thought of mary, If we read all about history, science, psychology, whether we healed people or prophesied.
What matters is how close we get to God, through jesus. and everything else will work itself out.
Deleted
He was named Jesus, according to the angel Gabriel.
Immanuel is WHO He was/IS. (God with us).According to the Book of Matthew verse 23: Gabriel tells Joseph that he would be called Immanuel (God with us), but verse 24: Joseph called him Jesus (God saves).
Matt 1:23 which is a word for word quote from Isa 7:24.
But in Luke, Gabriel tells Mary to name him Jesus.Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and THEY shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
THEY not joseph, they the people shall hail him as Emmanuel, God with us. Just for clarity sake the 'they' are the jewish people.
Notice also that none of Isaiahs 2 children were called Immanuel either. In Isaiah the son was the sign that 'God was with them' because this was necessary as they were about to go into exile and every time they saw Isaiahs son they would think 'God is (still) with us.
Isaiah 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
The lord named this child Mahershalalhashbaz NOT Immanuel.
So i feel confident in saying that since there is no other Immanuel mentioned in the bible that this was not a name but a title.
Thus freeing up Gabriel, in luke, to tell mary to name him Jesus.
I don't have a phd in bible NT
I really do hope readers are not sucked in by people claiming to have degrees in bible study. Studying the bible is not all there is to understanding the bible and certainly not all there is to be a good christian, in fact, if someones study of the bible surpasses the amount of time they spend praying, God will tilt the scales back so that praying becomes the more time consuming and important of the two, because its all about God and not all about how much time we spend studying His Word.And once again you are agreeing with what I posted. LOL. You just like to use the long winded versions.
What took you that long post to write, I put into three sentences.
For those that follow the bible with the "guidance of the holy spirit" or know a little about the bible, didn't need an explaination of what I wrote.
But thanks for giving the detailed versions for those "believers" who don't have your 2 years of Christian experience. Since I was replying to a Christian believer, I didn't think the requirement to explain in detail what those passages meant was needed. So far the only person who feels the need to completely explain in detail what I say is you. Everyone else seems to get and understand it the first time around with the brief version.
That is twice you have repeated my post in your own words but was still in agreement.what you so wisely wrote, when read, seemed like a contradiction.
You first jot down Gabriel told him to name him Immanuel -God with us
and then that in Luke Gabriel told him to name him Jesus - jehovah saves.
I know you like to think that i was backing you up but in actuality i was refuting the seeming contradiction and clarifying.
which is pretty good stuff for a 2 yr old.
And since you brought that up, I will be 3 in may on the 13th.
Time, obviously, is not a key indicator of correctness. Gods graces are upon all His children who have a sincere heart and seek Him.I said he shall be CALLED in the first section (as the angel was explaining to Joseph why this birth was important) and His NAME would be in the second one (Which is the angel telling Mary what his actually name should be)...Which is what you felt needed to be "clarified".
It seems you just want to disagree with me. If you would have just read what I wrote instead of looking to debate it, you would have seen that what I wrote, was the same thing you wrote but thought was a contrdiction.
Happy early 3rd to you.double
no i don't want to disagree with you but i will if necessary.
If you don't see how what you wrote can be construed as a contradiction then whatever.
Its been a very good and challenging almost 3 yrs. Wish i had christian parents who showed me the way early in life, everything would have been and would be today, so much different. I might have found a wife, had some kids, been better in school. My life so sucked.I don't mind the disagreements. In fact it is benefitial to the learning process (in my opinion).
I must say, it does seem that you have done some study in your three years, more than the majority.
While we might not always agree, hopefully, we both get to learn something from th research of our respective sides of our arguments.
Yes I have a fearful mind. Do I sound like that. You try in valid to attack truth. Without Christ you will be in hell. the bible says that not me. Christ died on the cross for you and me. Why do you think he died. Don't give me the answer that he had to fulfill what the prophets said. They also said he would be the savior of the world. If you rely on any thing else your insulting him and making his death worthless. About being lesser intelligent . Give me some facts on what ou believe. How do you know what Jesus said. How do you know Luke was not a liar.
Most of us are ready to argue in favor of by-birth religion . why
plgood question
I think it comes from time when early christians disputed about basics of christianity - one is right who offers a more logical arguments. But problem is - there is no a real basis, at all. Whole structure is built on tales. It is why believers are advocating so keen - notwithstanding religion he presents. If Your beliefs dont bring You a full satisfaction [consolation], You need to get them from others, additionally.Thanks for appreciation, Kitty
I was thinking about such thing for years, but still dont have a proper answer... actually there are many reasons for such behavior.
Now I see, only one we can do - to pray all orthodox institutions disappear as quick as possible. They all are instruments in hands of powerholders.
Well, there's this passage in the Bible where Jesus says something like "Nobody comes to the Father but through me."
And lots of Christians interpret that to mean, "if you're not a Christian (and specifically, my denomination), then you're doomed to Hell."
Hell is supposed to be really, really awful.
So some Christians try to save people from Hell out of kindness. If you really believed that a real Hell really, literally existed, wouldn't you try to warn people about it, and show them how to avoid going there? The ones who proselytize out of kindness are kind of like the person who yells, "Look out for that bus!" The problem, though, is that the bus is invisible, and nobody really knows for sure if it's there or not.
But other Christians seem to get off of on power. You are wrong, but I can set you right if you just do as I tell you. The passage I mentioned above is a convenient excuse for this kind of behavior. But difficulties come when one person who has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior disagrees with the scripture interpretation of someone else who has also accepted Jesus Christ etc. If the scripture is perfect and eternal, then there's really only one way to interpret it, right? So somebody has to be wrong, and it's got to be you, because I arrived at my conclusion through study and verified my conclusion through prayer. So did you? Well, obviously, you've been led astray by Satan. Look out for that bus! No, you idiot, it's a taxicab. No, it's a bus! Cast off the shoe, follow the gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
The way I look at it, when someone shares with me the Good Tidings of Our Savior, I try to assume that they're metaphorically shouting "Look out for that bus!" Never mind that I wasn't going to step into the street, or never mind that the bus isn't in danger of running me over; they genuinely thought I was in danger, and they're trying to be kind to me.
Sometimes, though, they turn out to be the power-trip kind. I haven't got any time for them. Yeah, yeah, look out for the bus. But you know what? It's stopping to let me on, so, 'bye.Haha...too funny and too true! I like the bus metaphor, I'm going to have to use that in the future. And you're right, it probably is that they are trying to be kind and save others from the proverbial bus. I should look at it a little more kindly in the future, and I will. But the power-trippers...no thanks.
Indeed, I made a good friend when someone stopped by my house to witness to me once upon a time. We talked (I had some time on my hands and was feeling chatty) and we traded interpretations of a couple passages of scripture, and there was never any "look out or you'll end up in Hell." In fact, our conversations often remind me of stuff that I've forgotten (usually about patience, and being kind even when you don't much feel like it). It may surprise you to know that she's a Jehovah's Witness.
But if she'd turned out to be the sort who tries to scare you into joining a church, we'd never have gotten along so well. I treat power trippers like telemarketers: politely, but firmly, say goodbye.
Personally I'm agnostic. However, I am starting to think that religion seems more like memetic propaganda which is designed to spread and could therefore ultimately be used to control the masses. There does seem to be a lot of scare tactics in the bible.
The vatican have actually admitted to making 14 changes to the new testament despite the fact that it actually says in there and making changes to the words contained within is against God.
Here's a few shocking excerpts:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
MARK 12:18-27
“Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother."
There's also much worse.There is plenty in the Bible that is seriously disturbing...as you might imagine a book written 2000+ years ago would be.
The mistake - made by both religious and non-religious people - is that it was a template for modern behavior. To divorce it from its context is to simultaneously give it too much and too little importance.
@KittyTheDreamer, why do you sling such generalities?
I could ask, why is it all Pagans are such _______! Fill in the blank with whatever. The operative word is "all." But do "all" of any group conform to anyone's preconceived notions? Stereotyping is bad. Why perpetuate it? Shame on you!
I'm a Christian who happens to have been a Buddhist and still have fond feelings for Rinpoche Gyaltsen, my mentor from so many years ago. I have learned one of my biggest spiritual breakthroughs from a Hindu here on HubPages. And I have high regard for the more wise Native Americans and their heightened awareness of nature.
Unlike some Christians, I try to approach learning with humility. In other words, I don't know everything. Could Gautama Siddhartha have been "following Christ" when he achieved Nirvana (Enlightenment or Buddha-hood)? Perhaps. Who am I to judge?
And likewise, who are you to judge? Just a thought.
Different lives and different experiences? Some of those move in dark circles, Kitty. Can you blame a Christian for being concerned about others? What if they're right that others will "burn in hell?"
Frankly, I think most Christians who belabor that point are full of ego, and all their Bible thumping is grist for their ego mill. But not all of them. Some are humble and sincere.
As spiritual beings, we're currently trapped in the physical plane of existence. That's all because of ego (Satan, the Devil). How do we get out of the trap? It's not easy. We've been at it for perhaps millions of years, if my biblical calculations are right. Only a handful have made it, including Buddha.
But if the spirits who are helping us out, plan to leave after the next harvest, then those who are left behind likely will never make it. I'd call that hell, and I don't like the prospect of being left behind.
I call myself a Christian, but I'm not so arrogant to think that I have it made quite yet. I don't know that I'm doing what would qualify as "following Christ." I could be wrong, then I'd hate to find that out after the train has left the station.Personally, I don't think everyone else is wrong. I almost never quote scripture. I use my own words from my own heart. I will make an exception in this case. The setting . . . the author is addressing Jewish Christians in Rome. He is discussing the relationship between the "Law" (we should know what that is) and faith. He is talking about their "my way or the highway" mentality:
". . . it is not the hearers of the Law who are justified before God, but the doers of the law will be justified. For the Gentiles (heathens, infidels), not having the Law, do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law are a Law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts either accusing them or else defending them on the day, according to my gospel, that God will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ."
Have you ever noticed how Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims from India seem to make the best Christians?
Now I have answered the question to satisfy curiosity, not engage in a senseless argument, as is often the case. "Only a fool picks a fight with a stranger . . . he just might just get his ass kicked." Chip CurryI did not quite understand if you were being sarcastic or not about hindus etc.. make the best christians.
according to the law there are many who seem to be good christians but in reality they are not good christians they are just good. And good is an advantage but not the way.
The scriptures are a narrative of God's interaction with humankind. If we lose this notion of Gods desire for relationship with human beings, we are in danger of losing the heart of the Christian faith. Doctrines, of course, will flow from that faith, but when the scriptures call us to believe, we are being called to put our trust in someone, not to just agree with a bunch of doctrine.
that is another prove that religion is human made phenomena since it is not about christians or muslims but more about how human design works...
So If we know that we are doin ing IT! !! ..... Why cain't we quit it?
quit what? religion or design?...design is difficult to quit and religions keep coming and going...all these religious heads or gods are not even 2000 or 4000 years back kind of things...we had gods or religion before that too...so religions keep coming , going but design of having religion and god is something which is as old as when humans began to think...which is long long back...
- brotheryochananposted 12 years ago0
Its really nice to hear all the syncretic views of Orthodoxy become flexidology, but... What has occurred is that these people have filled their plate at the smorgasbord of various beliefs, taking a bit from this and from that. Bits and pieces that seem appropriate and leaving behind what they don't like.
But this is wrong.
There is so much persuasive information that completely contradicts God allowing people to choose their own mishmash from front cover to back cover, God nor his prophets, nor his Son, nor the apostles and no letters, nowhere in the pentateuch, psalms, ecclesiastics, 1 second kings.. the minor prophets.. you get my point.. is this allowed.
God made rigid and sundry rules, ordained a sabbath day, ordained the animal sacrifice, made feasts and festivals, put down standards and instructed His people in every way, consequently, this all points to ONE way.
Before the temple was destroyed in 70AD, which jesus predicted, jesus ushered in a new way and fulfilled scriptures, and then offered himself up for everyone in the world, present and future. Again ONE way.
There is only one way and its not whether we believe in a literal snake on a tree or what if the body of jesus was found or how long before our sun burns out (4 billion years apparently - talk about eternity huh) or how the complexity of DNA precludes God.. or any other such thing. Its the core beliefs that are most important because they offer hope and joy and inspire faith to move obstacles.
Just believe on Him is all that is required to get the ball rolling. Its not hard, its not rocket science, there is no path to enlightenment that requires the opening of a third eye, No one has to live on a mountain top, no one has to open all the history books and search for evidence of Jesus, no one has to go to bible school and get a diploma. Believe on him.
So just skipping around the sacrifice of Jesus is definitely not the way, and if that's not the way then some other way must be right and you'll find it in the bible and your own personal relationship with God merely because you believed.what sacrifice?...did jesus die or is he still there?...if he is still there and god as many claim , then god can never die and knowing well that he cannot die , getting himself on cross is not sacrifice to start with...it can be said sacrifice only if that was the end...normal human beings have made more sacrifices than that...when a fire fighter dies saving people trapped , it is more sacrifice than done by some one who knows he/she cannot die...
A firefighter makes a sacrifice to save a few people.
Jesus died to save ALL HUMANITY.
Just a "little" different, yes?that is what I am saying...If i know i am not going to die and then hang myself , is it sacrifice?...obviously not , since anyway i am not going to die...sacrifice of fire fighter is much greater than jesus since that is true sacrifice...
Yes, I know what you are saying, but you are assuming (incorrectly) that Jesus neither died, nor COULD die, when in fact He DID die.
There's a difference between knowing you have the power to rise from the dead, and not dying in the first place.
Don't tell me, you are another Muslim? Am I correct?I am not muslim...Now coming to you answer...knowing that in end u wont die or to be precise be raised from death is like having bullet proof jacket and facing bullets...do we call that sacrifice???????...we can call that commitment to safe others or some thing on those line but sacrifice?????....it can be said to be sacrifice only when one knows that it is the end and no one would rise him from death and still going for it...that is sacrifice ...This can be called many things including stunt to woo people knowing well that he would rise back....sacrifice is something which cannot be done by divine or divine agent, it can be done only by normal human beings...Yes if jesus was plain human and rise from death had nothing to do with jesus but more to do with god who sent jesus , it makes sacrifice but for that jesus has to be plain human being and nothing more than that...
We groan with longing to know. Jesus was a normal human being at that point. He died like we will. He was resurrected by the power of The Most High, The Great Spirit who gave us the buffalo. The buffalo is holy, it came from Wankan-Tanka, the one who spoke and made the big bang. The Giver of Life who made all of this earth holy, who is the life in every tree and animal and even every blade of grass. The mono-pole , the force that holds it all together. The Earth and all that is in it is holy. We desecrate it daily with our foul activity. We writhe in anticipation of our fate. We know. We know. No answer will give us peace. Our abominations against this holy place are a stench in our own nostrils . . . Burning . . . clawing at our sleep. We gorge ourselves with pleasure and luxuries beyond reason. The longing still lingers. . . gnawing at our rest. Nothing can satisfy. We can't drown the knowing. Our rantings are futile , it is too late. We cry out from our pathetic existence, we did not chose this life. Why was it thrust upon us? All is vanity. The wise man and the fool are alike. The earth totters like a shack. The one who flees in terror falls into a trap. The one who escapes the trap is caught in a snare. The love of many will grow cold, men will become scoffers and lovers of themselves.They walk about like drunkards and grope along the wall. The tribes of the earth will mourn and their hearts will melt within them.
I am looking forward to discarding these rags. I am not righteous. I have gone so far as to deserve death. How will I pass muster on the day when all is revealed. We all know of that day. We know. We will be seen in his clothes, since we ruined ours on the way home. I am sorry! There are not words enough. Explanations fail, but the Love of God never fails.
Let's sit quietly and watch the sun set over the water. We will not say a word. It looks the same to both of us. I am glad you are here. I like you sitting next to me. We will make a small fire and have a smoke. The day was satisfying, becuse you came along. Let's rest now. Tomorrow we will write a hub and suggest links.This is not a sacrifice by definition: it is so important and i am giving it away, it means so much to me it hurts. This is a sacrifice by definition: offering. Something given in homage.
The point is... that the body died. The body is the sacrifice, just as the animal body was the sacrifice, jesus body was the sacrifice. Its not a question of killing God. A sacrifice was needed and it was given. Its not a question of resurrection, resurrection is a given and another point of the death of the body, there can be no resurrection without a body that has died.
The crucifixion, Jesus - the lamb of God, sacrificed: Its just plain brilliant!BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really, Really, BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you just double down on calling ourself brilliant?
Wow, in any context that's extremely prideful. For such a devout Christian. A sin I believe.
In all honesty, you are hi on fundamentalism.Of course I didn't
"The crucifixion, Jesus - the lamb of God, sacrificed: Its just plain brilliant!" <-- that is the last line of my post, 3 posts, prior to your hasty and wrong criticism.
Its got nothing to do with me buddy
But it is brilliant!!
what i don't understand is why so many people put so much time and energy into thinking about life after death when they could be putting it into life before death!!!
i don't see that the question has been answered as much as it has been proven valid.
and i have to add...let people believe what they want...'as long as they're seeking god in some form.'? is that suggesting that anyone who isn't seeking some god deserves to be told that they are wrong and will suffer at the end of it all...?! that's just as bad in my opinion. nobody deserves to be judged. most of us are just trying to find our way, whether that means believing or not...You will never find your way by your own strength. You were created for a purpose, and that was to glorify God. You are loved by God and he wants you out of your own free will to choose to serve him. Afterlife is very important and it should concern you as it lasts forever. Which religion do we follow? None! Religion is human made and out of our works. Faith in Christ is about being accepted by God.
To start I want to state that I only read about maybe a quarter of the responses and those that I read did not reflect my opinion on the matter. That brings me to point number two, this is my opinion and by no means the end-all be-all on the matter.
With the 'disclosure' out of the way this is my take on the subject; Many years ago I set out to find my place in the world of religion, I sought to find the religion that best followed the basic beliefs that I had already formed. During that pursuit I studied many forms of Christianity and I found a LOT of arrogance and ignorance and intolerance, qualities that Christians are not supposed to embody.
After much reflection I came to realize that most of the arguments stemmed not from an intentional desire to prove superiority but in the strength of belief in their interpretation of what the Bible says. The Bible itself, which I have studied many times (as a work of literature, as the word of God, solo and in bible studies with others), is riddled with contradictions and it is very easy to see how the book could be skewed by so many. Additionally, as a book, it has been translated (by mortal humans) and mistakes happen (even intentional ones). It is not such a stretch of the imagination to believe that someone may have gotten something wrong.
There is a joke/comic out there that shows a monk weeping loudly at a table with papers strewn all about. Two other monks come upon him, one whispers a question to the other 'what is wrong with him'? The other replies 'he was going through the translations and found that 'life of celebacy' was supposed to read 'life of celebration'.' How easy would it have been for an eager scholar to misread or misinterpret his translation of a dead language?
In the end I found that my relationship with God is between Him and I and is a personal thing. I do not feel that He is hung up on 'religion' at all, especially since religion itself was created by man. Thus I try my best to live by the Golden Rule of 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. I give thanks, I pray, I believe in forces unexplainable by any scientific means, and I believe that tolerance is far more important than most anything else and a tolerant person never needs to feel 'right' or necessarily vindicated.So i guess that means that no books that have ever been translated are trustworthy. Yes there are errors, but this does not mean mistakes, nor does it mean that the doctrines or core beliefs of christianity are compromised, research has shown that the errors are minimal and really of no consequence. A microscope (patent 1955) has been used extensively in studying bible texts and to this day no major rewrite of the bible has occurred meaning the past translators did an excellent job. Paprologists are amazing at what they do. The epiflourescent confocal laser scanner microscope can discern between an intentional pen stroke and an accidental ink blot. An eager scholar who is translating or copying the word of God and not just an ordinary book about the life of flatworms. As a hallowed and sacred book, this kind of source material ups the bar, so to speak. Greek is not a dead language, at least not back then and certainly not to people who studied for years and received doctorates in linguistics and certainly not to the translators whom were required to know greek language - as u mentioned, scholars.
If God is not hung up on religion then why the feasts and the sacrifice of animals? If i have your definition of religion correct. The church is like any other dedicated place, its a place of learning, fellowship and growing but you have to find the right one as in the right school, job, house to buy... people need to find the right church. God instituted the church because in the synagogues moses was taught and the christian did not get exposed to christ and neither were allowed to voice their beliefs.
Tolerance is okay but even with tolerance lines have to be drawn. Am i to be tolerant of my friends sugar addiction and his diabetes? Life is serious, afterlife is serious too. With all the work that God put out to ensure a right way, we ought to respect that and not white wash it.
Nice post... i know its your opinion and like most people when the going gets rough they pick an easier path, doesn't mean they are right in doing so.
I enjoyed the part you wrote about "After much reflection I came to realize that most of the arguments stemmed not from an intentional desire to prove superiority but in the strength of belief" Beliefs, no matter what they are will always ostracize those who are outside of that belief. Its a shame but its a fact, whether the belief is right or not, this is a byproduct of believing, the one listening to the belief needs to realize the intention behind the belief, and then, examine the belief.
Have a great day,i just thought i would add some info not to discredit you or argue, just fYi.First!! It's a really stupid question to ask and second what i feel is, being religious doesn't mean that you are a good person or a bad person.
What counts here is your behaviour.
Listen i almost follow what my religion says(yes i said almost =P)
Religions are meant to maintain law in this world to stop one from doing bad deeds(karma)
Maybe when there was no law in the prehistoric time they used this method to maintain law and order and it worked also. Later, things they changed and came up with new ideas maybe some of them thought ..still there is some room for improvement and new religions were created.
It tries to prevent you from all types of social evils for example:- boozing, murdering, stealing, raping, premarital sex blah blah.
But many of us have already done almost all of these if someone refuses having not done these then i'd say that person is lying. =/
So my advice to you "Don't fucking talk about religion...these questions are for retarted people".
I ain't "hyp·o·crite"........so i came up with my honest opinion.
Entonces dejame salir de aquí......buena suerte.One more thing to add....we all are racist too ..a black man, an asian, etc etc they all shout "we are racially discriminated in that x country and they behave rudely"
My question is when these white people, black, asian etc etc (whatever your ethnicity is) they come to your country....how many of you don't talk about his features and color????We all do....................................
very bad extremely bad but ultimately more or less......only white man suffers...weird.. oO?
mejor me voy de aquí. =PBack again....couldn't resist myself..lol.
I have not encountered many white people in my life(face to face)
So i can't judge them actually......perhaps it's true or perhaps not.
When they are here in nuestro país they look pretty decent and soft spoken....next year i am planning to visit south america for 1month..then i'll get to know how exactly real white people they are and to what extent they are racist ...
don't know... =PThree posts in a row.....(unlucky same like your friday the 13th)
sorry ....one more post by me....little superstitious ....then try canada
theres lots of whites up here, especially in the winter it seems not too many want to come up here from warmer climates. I'd go south if i could and forget winter completely.
Its interesting that you chose to vocalize your thoughts, but have you ever considered the real reason there is religion. Its not an opiate to control the masses.
Lets consider the age of religion. It is ancient and sure its a common thing to say "oh those dumb goat herders", but this is not an answer either, at least not an intelligent answer.
Egypt and all the nations that existed way back then all had their different beliefs and some things were common but they were each very much different. So how did this all happen? Why were nations, who were at war with each other and not liking each other end up with their own gods? To explain what they did not understand? Hmmm, but this is not an intelligent answer either neither does it adhere well to the 'controlling the masses' theory. The gods that were worshiped, back then, all had significance. The gods were not controlling dictators, in fact, many were fertility gods, gods connected with seasonal change and the afterlife. None of this can be counted as an opiate to control the masses. The gods were worshiped to control their environment which at that time was very harsh and so was the lifestyle which included defending any land that a nation owned. No gods represented holiness and made people aware of sin as did the Hebrew God which they as a people - for they were not a nation, but slaves to the Egyptians - did not call upon, but rather God came to them out of the blue and ended their term of slavery and took them on a journey that they knew not where they would be going. Again not an opiate to control the masses but rather a concerned God who freed a small people, not rich or powerful or many in number. He did this that all the world might see through those people, the one true God. So we see that God had come to them not to control them - he allowed them to fight for the right to inhabit land and keep their freedom. He then instructed them, in ways contrary to all nations around them about how to live life prosperously. This prosperity came to them first in 10 commandments and then by the Law (which they chose to increase until the Law became their substitute for God.) As Law is, concerning its nature, sentence is applied upon the verdict of guilt and to us in hindsight this may seem like a method of control, which in part it is, but only in part [as much as laws keep societies under control today, yet people have freedoms] and certainly not in whole, nor of intention. The intention was that they might abide by the law, as it was given, no more and no less, and prosper, materially and toward one another.
So time went on: Jesus came, preached love, humility and truthfulness and died, rose again and thereby birthed knowledge of God again, for the people had forgotten that the inner qualities being truth and goodness and obedience to Gods ways are what God is interested in and not just about serving a bunch of rules via reluctance or duty; but sincerity and mercy was very much preferred.
Then along came Jesus. Who took 10 commandments and whittled them down to two. Love God and your neighbor.
Only hindsight from a bent perspective could really try to say that all this was created just to keep people in line.
Now the myths of the greeks and romans are a different story, as a study about 'double doctrine' will tell you concerning Socrates but for brevity i leave that out.
New religions are created because there are many beliefs in the world today and it is common practice to pick and choose from this smorgasbord of 'ways and paths' and mix n match to accommodate ones designer needs, such as the Presbyterian Buddhist, the christian who believes in reincarnation and karma or the hindu atheist who accepts dargon who lives on alpha centuri, but this is just the nature of people who have a bias toward some religions and do not want the persuasive evidence to tell them what to do, they will choose their own path, which, relentlessly makes more paths.
Of the things you mentioned: "boozing, murdering, stealing, raping, premarital sex"... perhaps knowing a God that wants to prevent the liver failure and life destroying abilities of alcoholism, the loss of a loved one being taken away before old age, the set backs of robbery, the ruination of psychological damage and bodily harm, and the loss of joy that a couple have experimenting as newbies, their sexual life together as man and wife, would have helped prevent any of these 'unable to undo and unable to get that wasted time back' situation from ever occurring.
Now, what is really, retarded?
Also a sidenote about feelings. Feelings are only part of what we are, we are thinkers able to act in responsible ways, to discipline ourselves. Often feelings are used to rationalize all sorts of things and to eliminate a need for thoughtful research before one starts a rant. "I must be true to my feelings" and then commit adultery for example.. or i feel that there is no one way to God and that's my opinion. Feelings can be very tricky and can deceive if only feelings are utilized to make decisions. When people follow ONLY their feelings they are being untrue to themselves as a whole unit and ignoring all of what they can be and what their life could be.
hope this helpedYou need to copy this and make a hub. I'm not even joking. You are on a roll. If you don't, I'll change a couple of things and call it mine.
thanks for that!
Gimme a link when its done :handshake:So when is your book being published? This as a great post and sounds like you could have expanded it a great deal but held back because it was a forum post.
lol
i dislike writing
There are too many bases that need to be covered or I know someone will pick an area just for the sake of argument or spurt some redundant comment that i could have eliminated if i had just written a few more lines.
much good is destroyed by a little evil
truly, I always try to be brief because this is a forum post, yet the necessity to cover the bases weighs heavily upon me. I'd rather one big post, i suppose, than several confuting posts.
Translations can be tricky. That was a great joke. I attended a Baptist church for a few years and I learned something there. If you want to invite someone from church to go fishing with you. Invite two . . . then they won't drink your beer.
Literally, the "Golden Rule" is LOVE your neighbor as you love yourself.Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he drinks beer all day long.
We have found common ground. Maybe we can build from here.
Think the same as the Catholic/Protestant dichotomy; having to through the church or being able to have a self-relationship with God, independent of the church.
In fact -
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law
- these require communal living. These are community virtues that need to be cultivated in a way that can't be accomplished in isolation.
Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
I was raised as a Presbyterian where nothing more than the bible was studied. We had a great pastor who only taught the bible at his sermons. He was a great speaker, held an audience captive and left his congregation feeling peaceful. I never had any feelings that I was right or other religions were wrong. Most of my relatives were Catholic so I was in a Catholic Church as often as my own. various life functions afforded me an opportunity to attend other churches.
If you go back to the origins of Christianity and the Catholic Church you will be highly disappointed to learn how they operated, set rules, fought to convert and contributed to the deaths of many for the sake of religion. We now celebrate some holidays that are really known as Pagan holidays designated by the church for its parishioners. Many religions were spin offs with their own rules and beliefs. People need to feel comfortable there but not shove their beliefs down every ones throat.
I have an open mind and learned about various religions. I'm glad I went to a church that had no insane rules but just taught us what was in the bible. People are incorrect if they feel they are right and everyone else is wrong. The bible is the basis for all religion. Science has been able to explain many details in the bible with some accuracy but others are still miracles. If you can open your mind look into the sky one night. Stare at the stars and think about this, where does all this begin and is there an end. We are accustomed to knowing everything has a beginning and an end but out there in space the universe has no end.- Deborah Sextonposted 12 years ago0
____________________________________
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
1 John 2:6
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walkedJames 2:19. You believe their is a God? Good even the demons believe that and they shudder. Your scipture is correct. No amount of works will save you as we are saved by faith alone. But out of this faith comes works and good deeds that come from our free will. Faith without works is dead. A true believer will show by what he does that he is a Christian. But this work will never save you, only faith in God
_______________________
Many people have been derailed by the Pauline doctrinePaul articulated the true meaning and consequence of the person and work and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth . . . there was no conflict between Jesus' message and Paul's message, and the apostles who Jesus personally chose and trained for a year and a half all understood this and recognized Paul as a teacher sent from God - those since who try to keep the 'Jesus' part of Christianity while rejecting Christianity do so by both fashioning for themselves a 'Jesus' that appeals to them and marking Paul as a conniving religious entrepreneur and so rejecting his teaching . . . this is simply a rewriting of the historic record and self-serving rationale.
That's a bizarre statement. You set the teachings of Paul above the words of the one the faith was named after. I realize the vast majority of Christians do this, but not many are willing to admit it
I said "Paul articulated the true meaning and consequence of the person and work and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth" - how is that setting Paul's teaching above Jesus'?
Because you also said those since who try to keep the 'Jesus' part of Christianity while rejecting Christianity do so by both fashioning for themselves a 'Jesus' that appeals to them
What you are basically saying is that Paul, not Jesus, defines Christianity. You follow Paul by those words. What do you think Christianity was meant to be, other than following Christ? The gospels are a stand alone message. Paul's writings aren't._______________
You are very enlightenedEmile R,
I said those who reject Paul's teaching as contrary to Jesus' reaching are "fashioning for themselves a 'Jesus' that appeals to them" - the part of Christianity that they want to keep is a 'Jesus' I marked within apostrophes, as in, not the actual Jesus of history but a notion some call "Jesus" that teaches what they prefer him to teach.
I'm saying Paul was called and ordained by Jesus to present His truth, the truth of who He is and what he did . . . Paul's teaching does not at all contradict Jesus teaching. It is specifically and only because I am a disciple of Jesus that I recognize and embrace Paul's teaching of Jesus' message.So, you explain why you feel Paul is the one who defines and determines Christianity. The Christ did a pretty good job defining himself. If his message needed the help of a Paul, his message wasn't worth the gospels it was documented in.
So, what purpose did the gospels serve?
No.. You embrace Paul's message by placing more emphasis on it than you do the words of the Christ. Which is certainly your right. I'm simply amazed that you claim to be a disciple of Jesus.Emile R,
You seem to be insisting that must certainly I believe what you say I believe rather than accepting that I know what I believe and I believe what I say I believe. I'm telling you that the distinction you make between Jesus' message and Paul's message is a false distinction - I'm not setting Paul's teaching above Jesus' teaching, I'm saying that I embrace Paul's teaching because it is Jesus' teaching and I follow Jesus.
You also say that Jesus did a sufficient job defining His message and simply did not need Paul's to further articulate it - you are mistaken, and the text of Scripture demonstrates this. throughout His teaching ministry Jesus consistently said that He would not yet go to Jerusalem because it was not yet His time, He spoke in parables, not to make His point more clear but to obscure it, He often answered questions with questions or riddles, etc.
Jesus simply did not come to teach us how to live or to reveal the whole of God's plan, etc - Jesus came to fulfill the covenant and accomplish the atonement. The night before His arrest when He informed His disciples He was leaving them and they resisted this, He assured them that it would be better for them for Him to go, that only if He leaves can the Spirit come and the Spirit would teach them more fully.
This promise was largely kept through the ministry of Paul. But here's the thing that you guys (those who approve of Jesus but reject Paul) just about always get wrong; Paul was the nice one, Jesus was the mean one. Of course I present that in a manner to make my point, Jesus was nice and good and loving, etc, but that fact is that Jesus talked about sin and hell and condemnation more than anyone and He blatantly announced that He was the only way to God - Paul talked about love and forgiveness and mercy, etc, more than anyone. The argument that is frequently advanced to resist Paul's teaching is simply unsound to begin with.I'm only reading your posts. I'm not putting words in your mouth. But since you think Jesus was the mean one, of course you would look to Paul for guidance. I mean, seriously, what choice did the church leave you? They silenced almost everyone else. Buried almost every other voice in order to ensure uniformity. I'm surprised they included the gospels in the faith.
Emile R,
You say "I'm not putting words in your mouth" but what you factually said was "What you are basically saying is that Paul, not Jesus, defines Christianity" when what I in fact said was "Paul articulated the true meaning and consequence of the person and work and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth" . . . when you say "What you are basically saying is . . . " you are exactly putting words in my mouth - I said what I said and I didn't say that Paul not Jesus defined Christianity.
I'm not trying to be a wise guy but, If you handle the text of Scripture (and historic resources, etc) the way you do these back-and-forth posts no wonder you are confused about Paul and his relation to Jesus' teaching. And, I don't know what church you imagine I am restricted to learn from - that is a giant assumption on your part.
Let me ask you thins; you suggest that, while you are favorable to Jesus' message you dismiss Paul's teaching - what do you hold to be Jesus' essential message? And for that matter, what do you count Paul's essential message to be?Never mind with her... don't give her a reason to talk.
She only argues for arguments sake. With this one you will end up on a ceaseless roller coaster and get nothing done.You attempt to see Jesus through Paul's eyes. You use Paul as your guide. You defer to Paul's judgement. Maybe it is a simple question of semantics. By my definition you are using Paul to define the Christ and his message.
I'll be honest. I thought you were restricted to the church of Mickey. I don't consider you confused, but simply in disagreement. That is the humorous part of talking to the religious. Any that disagree are confused, from your viewpoint. From my viewpoint, the whole thing was expressly intended to be a personal message. To be heard, thought about, and acted on. As the individual understood it. That is the problem with religion. You demand uniformity of thought on a spiritual level. It can never happen and that, to me, is the problem with religion in a nutshell.
That's a question that would require a long winded response. But, I'll attempt to pull it down to a couple of sentences. I think Jesus was attempting to share that each of us is connected to the Divine. That it is an integral part of life. That you need to search within. That God isn't sitting above us watching, he's within and without; waiting. Waiting for us to find a way to trust that the connection is always there. He was one with the father and he wanted humanity (all of humanity) to understand that they were also.
I have nothing personal against Paul. I think he had some profound moments. Unfortunately, he was all over the place. He was too steeped in the tradition of Judaism to shake it fully when he made the jump. You are either one in Christ or you aren't. You can't say there is no separation and then work strenuously to create separation. Christianity has devolved into a conglomerate of disjointed body parts. Thanks to the writings of Paul. I don't think that was meant to be. But then, my understanding of the words in the gospels that say all come to the father through the Christ is different from yours.
You attempt to see Jesus through Paul's eyes. You use Paul as your guide. You defer to Paul's judgment.
Paul had much to say. It doesn't take a brainiac to realize that Paul does not conflict with jesus ministry. Remember Jesus went to the Jewish nation and Paul to the Gentiles. So the things that shaped jesus ministry, like the jewish opinion of him, did not shape pauls mission. There is a difference between the two missions because it makes logical sense.
Maybe it is a simple question of semantics. By my definition you are using Paul to define the Christ and his message.
Not semantics. You just don't get it
I'll be honest.
This is just your opinion
From my viewpoint, the whole thing was expressly intended to be a personal message. To be heard, thought about, and acted on. As the individual understood it.
Not exactly. First you actually have to be on the path toward God. You have to line up to the guidelines of the 'one way'. You cannot merely proclaim yourself to be of God. You really have to formally introduce yourself according to biblical guideline. For instance. Abel offered a sacrifice pleasing to God. Cain did not. Were there two ways to God then? Nope. Is there two ways to God now? nope.
That is the problem with religion. You demand uniformity of thought on a spiritual level. It can never happen and that, to me, is the problem with religion in a nutshell.
We demand adherence to the core beliefs as does God. Everything else is either gravy or meat. Most of the conflict comes with wrong religions or no religions telling christians whazup. There is no problem with religion but problem with peoples thinking often sucks huge time.
Spiritual level impossible? lol.
that's a joke.
If you don't understand the spirit of God dwelling in people and NOT over taking their personalities then you will never find any spirituality. You might think you will, but it will be vain imagination. There is only spirit and that is of God. No other spirit is correct and because it is the God of whom the whole bible narrative clearly shows his relationship with people, his fondness for his people, how can we not know him? and learn things on that spiritual level.
I think Jesus was attempting to share that each of us is connected to the Divine.
Divine meaning God of the OT and what he called his father, right? not right.. then divine has no meaning other than another imaginary term.
That you need to search within. That God isn't sitting above us watching, he's within and without; waiting. Waiting for us to find a way to trust that the connection is always there.
delightful smorgasbord of what you consider him to be like. Bible says you are not exactly correct. We need to search within AFTER he puts His spirit into us.
He was one with the father and he wanted humanity (all of humanity) to understand that they were also.
Balderdash. He wanted us to realize that we CAN be one with the father, not that we ARE. Again unless his spirit is in us we have no part in him.
narrow is the way, remember?
I have nothing personal against Paul. I think he had some profound moments. Unfortunately, he was all over the place.
LOL
He was too steeped in the tradition of Judaism to shake it fully when he made the jump.
Most of his preaching career was teaching the jews they did not need the law and that christ was the messiah and that jesus died and rose again. The jews gave him so much trouble, following him around and bringing him before authorities to have his ministry ended. Thats just uneducated bs you slobbered out.
You are either one in Christ or you aren't. You can't say there is no separation and then work strenuously to create separation. Christianity has devolved into a conglomerate of disjointed body parts. Thanks to the writings of Paul.
Actually paul tried to keep false doctrine out. I corinthians 1 talks about the problems in the corinth church. Paul continually has to settle disputes. When peter went to eat with the jews while peter was to preach eating all things not offered to idols... peter was wrong to do what he did... What causes division today is the same thing that caused division in Pauls days.. false doctrine. Like what you say often.
But then, my understanding of the words in the gospels that say all come to the father through the Christ is different from yours.
and yet that is so clear. There is so much persuasive evidence to show clearly the way to the father is through christ and here we have some false doctrine. If the spirit of God were in you and you spent time asking God what coming to him through christ means you would have a not different idea.
No need to respond i could care less what you think. It will just be some ceaseless roller coaster ride ending up going nowhere. Anybody can refute anything but all i am interested in is evidence not personal opinion - everyone has a personal opinion but in order to be persuasive it has to be bible based, not self based or anything else based.
Gospels were written with the sole purpose to document one single event, the crucifixion of Jesus as visioned by Paul to found Christianity; and they documented it very poorly. Jesus's words all put together might not form more than 2/3 chapters.
Christians don't know Jesus and Jesus does not know the Christians; perfect strangers.71 days actually, paar. Thats not very much out of 3.5 yrs. But as has been persuasively evidenced the gospels are wonderful and insightful beyond value. Many theologians, scholars and people completely dedicated to the NT herald the gospels as reliable testimony from eyewitness disciples.
The gospel writers intended to preserve reliable history, were able to do so, were honest and willing to include difficult to explain material - even embarrassing situations. They did not allow bias to unduly color their reporting. The harmony among the Gospels on essential facts, coupled with divergence, lends historical credibility to all accounts. The Early Church could not have taken root and flourished right there in Jerusalem if it had been teaching facts about Jesus that anyone could have exposed as exaggerated or false and we would have the paper work to prove such accusations.
Christians do know Jesus clearly, you do notYou know, I could point out that, if God exists, Mohamed is not his prophet. That the quran is a human invention. That Mohamed made it all up in a brilliant grab for power. But that would be rude. So I won't. Anyway, what purpose is served by pointing out the obvious?
That is not the obvious.
Did you read Quran?Emile R,
You say that it is obvious that "the quran is a human invention" and that "Mohamed is not (God's) prophet" . . . if this is obvious then it is also truth, you are asserting that the truth is that the quran is a human invention and that Mohamed is not God's prophet - bu then you say that it is rude to say such a thing . . !? You can say just about anything in a rude or a kind or a matter-of-fact manner (like, 'would you make me a ham sandwich', etc) - but how do you come to count merely speaking the truth to be rude? I believe that the quran is a human invention and that Mohamed is not God's prophet and I don't think I'm being rude at all, not in the least, to say so.I think it is rude, simply because it offends another who does not agree. Truth, on a spiritual level is what you believe it to be. But, what you believe is not the same as another. It doesn't make you right, or wrong. It is only what you believe.
I shouldn't have said what I said, but I consider the religious who bash other religions an oddity. How can you call one a lie and one the truth when you can't prove anything? Why would you bash another person who only searches for truth as you do?Did I bash Jesus or Mary? I never did it; I cannot think of doing this; I love them so mcuh.
I don't bash Word revealed on Jesus or Mary, that was truthful; they never wrote NT Bible. Did they?
I respect Emile R; she is a good poster here; a friend.Thanks paar. I respect you too. I know I give you a hard time, off and on. But I respect those who stand up for what they believe in; even when I don't agree with them.
Really? You respect those who knowingly spread lies and make up stuff as they go along, who never answer questions when posed to them, who diss other religions while putting his on a pedestal?
Really?I respect everyone's right to believe as they see fit. I respect their right to stand up for what they believe in and I respect those who stand for their beliefs in the face of adversity.
This does not mean I am not saddened when beliefs show arrogance, ego, hatred, bigotry and turn a blind eye to injustice.
Truth is never rude; Jesus spoke truth against the clergy; was it being rude of Jesus.
No; not the least.
But there are many ways of saying a thing; one who has not studied Quran; teachings of Muhammad and the deeds he did; I don't mind if he conveys me the same sincerely. That enables me to mention the truth I believe in sincerely; of course with good reasons.
__________________
I asked and a few Christian's told me they follow the teachings of Paul over Yahshua. They stated it is because Paul said once Yahshua died, his teachings and laws were no longer in effect
I'm glad you can see the truth.A true observation; the Christians only know Paul; neither they know Jesus nor Jesus knows them; complete strangers.
I'm a Christian - what do you imagine or assume that I have wrong about Jesus? Because I identify myself to be 'Christian', what comes to your mind that suggests to you that I, who you don't know at all, don't know Jesus and that He doesn't know me?
Jesus' mission was for the Jews only not for the gentiles; when he told the disciples to go and spread the message to all nations; he meant all the twelve tribes of Israel not others.
It is deviant Paul who changed Jesus' teachings for his own self designed motives.
If Jesus meets some Christians; he won't recognize them from their beliefs or their deeds.That's like saying Islam is only for middle east "arab" nations.
They should keep it to themselves!
Which deviant muslim decided to take it to the world?Jesus was mandated to only give the message to the twelve tribes of the Jews; Jesus highlighted this point beyond doubt; so why do what he never intended?
Muhammad's message, supports all the revealed religions of the world; respects all the messengers prophets of the Creator God sent to all the regions of the world and holds that they were truthful in origin; so Muhammad is naturally for the whole world. This point has been clearly mentioned in Quran with no ambiguity or anomaly:
[34:29] And We have not sent thee but as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner, for all mankind, but most men know not.
[34:30] And they say, ‘When will this promise be fulfilled, if you are truthful?’
[34:31] Say, ‘For you is the promise of a day from which you cannot remain behind a single moment nor can you get ahead of it.’
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=28
And there is no harm in it; it is very peaceful, if understood correctly.JESUS said (NOT PAUL)
Mark 16 ; 15And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. 16Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned. (emphasis mine).
Also in Acts 1; 7He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (emphasis mine).
Like I said. Leave it alone!!!
paarsurrey wrote ..
Jesus' mission was for the Jews only not for the gentiles; when he told the disciples to go and spread the message to all nations; he meant all the twelve tribes of Israel not others.
========
I will agree in part. I can't remember the chapter and verse, and don't have time to look it up.
Jesus did say ... "I have come but for the lost sheep of Israel.
He also said that he has come to fulfill all prophesy concerning him.
Matthew 23:35 & 36; When TALKING TO the scribes and Pharisees, just moments before having a "PRIVATE" conversation with Peter, James , John and Andrew
(as described in Matthew 24) He said that "VERILY I say unto YOU .... (WHO IS HE TALKING TO?).....ALL these things shall come upon this generation!"
Read this chapter and see if there is any doubt as to who he is talking to.
And a few moments later, one of the disciples ask Jesus "When are those things going to come to pass; And Jesus answered, ....
v9 They shall deliver you up to be afflicted...
v15 When YE shall see the abomination ...
v20 but pray ye that YOUR flight be not in winter...
Who is Jesus talking to when he said these things?
Because he then goes on to say "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.
Jesus did not say that "SOME Generation" way far into the future shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. Why would Jesus even bring all of this up in conversation if these things did not pertain to those which he was talking to?
Kinda like saying “you are going to break YOUR leg, but don’t worry, It won’t happen for another 2000 years” That just don’t sound right.
I believe that it happened exactly as Jesus said that it would.
Because I believe in Jesus!
Didn't Jesus say something along the lines of ....
If anyone teaches a message that conflicts with his, It is false?
John, in the book of Revelation, fortells of a false religion that will teach a message that is SSOooo close to the truth that it will fool even the elect if that is possible?
And it will cause everyone, both small and great, free and bond, to worship it; OR DIE.
And then there will be second beast rise up out of the land etc. etc.
People need to actually think about what is written, instead of believing interpretations.
How much levin is required to spoil a barrel of flower?
How much untruth needs to be added to the truth in order to spoil it?
99% truth isn't Gods truth.Jesus meant the Jews:
Douay-Rheims Bible
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. And he left them, and went away.
Matthew 16:4I am not argueing this point with you.
There was nothing special about the Hebrews when God Chose them.
Scripture says something like "I have chosen this people so that I can show myself through then , to the rest of the world".
I think that God chose the Jews to make an example of, that God can give an example of himself. Or something kile that.
From those that much is given; much is expected.
paarsurrey,
Jesus' mission was not at all for the Jews only not for the gentiles - Jesus mission was for the world (COSMOS - the entire order and system of humanity). You say "when he told the disciples to go and spread the message to all nations; he meant all the twelve tribes of Israel not others" . . . the trouble is Jesus didn't say spread the message "to all nations", He specifically identified that they were to go to "Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth"; they were to start in Jerusalem, this is where you confusion starts . . . not that the Jews were the only ones He came to save or that they were more important than Gentiles, bu that they were the ones God had set apart to keep and distribute His law and promises, etc. He even specifically names the Samaritans has ones His message is for, and the Jews most particularly hated the Samaritans. And then "to the ends of the earth' can in no reasonable argument be twisted to mean, not the ends of the earth but only the 12 Jewish tribes.
Then you say "I can't remember the chapter and verse . . . Jesus did say "I have come but for the lost sheep of Israel". Jesus said that to a Gentile woman just prior to saying "'O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour". The gospel message, Jesus' message, is not exclusively foe Jews, it is for all creation . . . the reason there is confusion is because God set apart Abraham and his descendants to prepare the way for the Messiah.
The Jews received God's law and from them came the prophets and the temple and sacrifices, etc, all portrayed the promises of God - but is was never meant to be only applicable to them only - they weren't God's special people because they are the ones who are so wonderful and that He will save all and only them - they are God's special people in that they are the means by which God presents His truth and ultimately His saving Messiah to all His creation. This is why Jesus sent His disciples out to the Jews first, why Paul always went to the Jews first . . . because the promises were given to them - not that the promised were for them and them alone, but that to them the promises were given to keep and proclaim to the world. Again, that's why Jesus had such ongoing conflicts with the pharisees, because they thought just being Jews defined their relationship to God.___________________________
Better read it again he said not to go to the Samaritens. ONLY to the lost sheep of ISRAEL
Matthew 10:5-6
5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
He had mercy on the woman, but his instruction to the 12 was not to go to the Gentiles. No matter the mercy he showed the woman, he did not come for her.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
_____________________
I agree, Yahshua said he came for the lost sheep of Israel. He also instructed the 12 not to go to the Gentiles.
To be an Apostle you have to be a Student of Yahshua. You had to be with him and witness his resurrection and more.
During the time of Yahshua's teachings and resurrection, Paul was murdering Yahshua's people.
He never qualified for the position of an Apostle.Websters says: APOS'TLE, n. [L. apostalus; Gr. to send away, to sent.]
A person deputed to execute some important business; but appropriately, a disciple of Christ commissioned to preach the gospel
According to your definition of Apostle, no one can be an Apostle. Who actually witnessed His resurrection? No one was there with Him. He was in the tomb alone. Many saw Him after the resurrection, but none saw Him rise from the grave.________________
It's not my definition..it is in Acts
There was, are, and always be 12 Apostles. People claiming to be an Apostle
today are liars.
I get my info from the scriptures and Jewish history, not from a dictionaryYou still did not clarify who saw Jesus rise from the grave. That was your definition I was using.
Nobody saw Jesus rise from the grave and ascend to skies; none by name. It is a story or fiction writing.
Nobody saw Muhammad talking with Gabriel. Islam is a story or fiction writing.
See Paar, we can use the exact same "logic" on Islam as you use on other religions.
__________
You are arguing with the scripture you say you believe in.
It doesn't say they would witness the physical resurrection
You do know there are 2 different types of resurrection
There is a resurrection back to physical life (like Lazarus) and there is a final resurrection to eternal life.
Yahshua stayed with the 12 Apostles for 40 days before he ascended.
Acts 1
21. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.How can anyone be a witness to the resurrection of Christ? One must meet Jesus first, right? Can Jesus meet someone today? Of course He can. SO anyone with whom Jesus meets is an apostle.
You hatred for Paul over-rides your good judgment. It doesn't matter how many languages you know or can read in, unless you meet Jesus personally, you cannot know Him at all.Does it say that in the bible? or is that an interpretation?
and we can just keep streeeeetching a rubberband till it breaks.Do you believe Paul was an apostate or enemy of God?
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
How can anyone believe someone is even real if they had not met them first? Moses met with God in the tabernacle. He is the only prophet spoken of that talked with God face to face.
_________
It doesn't say meet him or know him.
It says be with him from the time of his baptism until he ascended.
There are no Apostles today.
There was no more after the 12The one who replaced Judas Iscariot was not with Him during the whole time. Your theory is full of holes.
________________________________
According to Acts 1 they were choosing from the ones that met the criteria.. It says OF THESE MEN WHO HAVE…..
"Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22).
For Matthias to be considered (Acts 1:23) it means that he fulfilled all these requirements.
The fact that besides the twelve, others also saw his resurrection and is confirmed by the gospels (Luke 24:33-36)
Even your friend Paul says in I Corinthians 15:6 that he made his appearance to "five hundred brethren."
Matthias was not counted with the eleven apostles before the resurrection
But according to the gospels he certainly did witness it.
He had many disciples
I agree with you.
Paul was a deviant and enemy of Jesus and those who followed Jesus.
I do not know who in the world would say such a thing. Nothing could be farther from the truth about Jesus teachings be done once he died... if you know someone who said that i would seriously have to absolutely doubt everything else they say.
There is no truth whatsoever to this slanderous accusation about Paul being wrong. Paul uses OT scripture often. Paul admits to preaching Christ crucified etc... such baloney.-------------------
Paul said it and yes it is not trueThat's just crap.
Pauls mission is different that jesus.
Jesus went to the jews
Paul went to the gentiles.
the two missions are different BUT the same God that inspired both.
So how can they be contrary.
The church was birthed because "in the temples Moses is preached" and the christians did not get fed Christ. Christians needed a place to hear the gospel, not go over isaiah again. The church is a natural extension of a place to worship, etc. Jesus set that up and Paul wrote it in his letters. No problem there.
Paul said grace by faith and not the law. No problem there. The law died on the cross with Christ and "now cometh grace (gods permissive will) by faith (belief on him who died). Because without the law, what else is there? No law... how about faith.. ahhhhh.
Paul wrote of the uncircumcision of the heart
Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
oh look so did moses
Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
both jesus and paul knew this one.
persuasive evidence if one is not biased
Jewish mysticism rules out jesus as messiah and his death on the cross and atonement for sin.. therefore it is a cult and far from the right path. I suggest you drop it. It has already told you mistruths about the bible.
______________________
I'm a self-serving rationale?
So far from the truth.
So if someone is not of the Christian religion they are not of God? Is that what you're saying?
Have you ever compared Yahshua's teachings and Paul's?
They are totally opposite.
The Apostles opposed Paul and that is why he always complained about them and ran down the ones who (As he states) claimed to be Apostles who thought they were better than Paul. (He was talking about the twelve real Apostles) He didn't want his followers to follow the twelve.Okay I will jump in. Jesus suffered and died for our sin. There is no other way to be saved but through the work already done by Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only way. Any other way is denying and undermining what Jesus did for us on the cross. All other religion will lead to eternity in Hell.
Deborah,
I'm not asserting that you are self-serving or rationalizing - I am talking about ideas, not people . . . I'm certainly not talking about you - I don't even know you.
Jesus' and Paul's teaching are not at all "totally opposite" and the 12, who Jesus personally called to carry-on His work, did not oppose Paul - you are confusing parties refereed to in Scripture. Paul didn't want believers, followers of Jesus, to be seduced by the teaching of the false brothers . . . the Judaizers. At the time of Jesus Judaism had become corrupted, it was not promoting the coming of the Messiah as our hope but was promoting man's own efforts to keep the law of Moses as our hope . . . Jesus had regular confrontations with the pharisees over this very matter. This circumstance didn't end with the death of Jesus or the Pentecostal start of the NT church.
There were many who accented to Jesus as the promised Messiah, but who still misunderstood that salvation was accomplished by Jesus' atonement and not by our own righteousness. Within the young church some were teaching that you came to God through Jesus but that you could only remain under God's favor through obedience. They were teaching Gentile converts to Christianity that they could only be true Christians if they first became good Jews . . . these men were called Judaizers.
It is these men and their false teaching that Paul rejected not the 12, and it was these Judaizers and not the 12 who stood against Paul and His teaching. Paul met with James and Peter and others and they gave him the right hand of faith . . . Peter even urges Christian readers of his NT letter, in Scripture, to heed Paul's teaching.
Deborah, I have compared Jesus' teaching with Paul's, I was not raised a Christian I came to it exactly through my own private study of the Scripture . . . I'm not following what I was raised to believe, I'm not following what some church teaches me, I'm not following any man - I understand the Scripture as I read it and God revealed His truth to me.
I understand the confusion, many who identify themselves as Christians are confused on this as well - there are passages that do seem to suggest contradictions and teaching that seems to conflict to other teaching, and the easiest solution may appear to be to simply take Jesus and reject Paul. However, this is no real solution at all. If you consider the history, the culture of the time, the false teachings prominent, etc, the actual true solution to the seeming difficulty is not so hard to understand. I mean, look, even Jesus' 12, the apostles that He chose and trained, were themselves still fully confused after all they witnesses - after His death, just as Jesus was ascending, His 12 asked "Will you now restore the kingdom to Israel?" . . . it took the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the special call and teaching of Paul, by God, to set forth the truth . . . it's not about the kingdom of Israel, it';s not about keeping the law, it's not about our own righteousness - it's about the sacrifice of Jesus, His atonement, and God's grace.exactly bro
There was contention about Jesus brings salvation but to be truly saved you must obey the LAW of Moses.
Paul fought against this his whole life.
There is no mixing the Mosaic law with christianity. The law is done away with in Christ. Christianity is Jesus - God incarnate.
John very clearly indicates that Peter was to shepherd Jesus' sheep. In addition, Jesus indicated that Peter was to glorify God by being crucified. If one rejects Peter, one must also reject the apostle John and his gospel.
In the Acts of the apostles, Luke proclaims that Paul was chosen directly by Jesus Christ as an apostle. By rejecting Paul, one must also reject Luke's book of Acts and the gospel of Luke. Therefore, by logic, one would have to reject all four gospels of Jesus Christ, as written by the apostles. In addition, by rejecting the grace of God, one must reject the entire Old and New Testament, since there are hundreds of examples of the unmerited grace of God.
If one rejects the doctrine of grace, he must be able to answer the following questions from Paul:
Why did Messiah Jesus die? As Paul said, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Galatians 2:21)
The next question is likewise from Paul. "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Galatians 3:2)
Paul had a knack for getting to the point of the gospel. The third question is also from Paul. "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)
Many who reject the gospel of grace do so because they think that they can please God on the basis of their own works of the flesh. This amounts to simple pride, which God abhors. Included below are some of the things the Lord has led me to, that all might accept His grace and trust Him with our sanctification.
Gimme one good example of a false doctrine by Brother Paul please
__________________
I have already written a hub on the differences of Yahshua and Paul's teaching. You even tried to post an insult on my hub.Acts 26:9
I (Paul) verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul did think about it often and acted on that desire to destroy Yahshua's influence and become a stumbling block to those who sought God.
Paul was obviously referring to his life prior to his conversion. Get a grip, of reality. There is no other source of authority than the full infallible word of God. All other attempts to understand life is made up with no substance. A life void of God will land you in Hell. God loves you, and your free will is the only human part of you that can keep you out.________________
You do not have permission to copy and use my material.
You get a grip and study. He opposed all the teachings of Yahshua and the Apostles.
He even admitted he lied
Instead of arguing, why don't you read what Paul taughtNot arguing. Just pointing out the stupid idea using that verse completely out of text.
____________
I didn't use it out of context. And be careful who you call stupidPaul was saying how the Jews were opposing Jesus and how he had done the same before his conversion. This is hardly saying he was contemplating going against Jesus Yes a stupid misuse of scipture
It doesn't matter what Paul said or wrote. He wasn't actually following Jesus' teachings. He was interpreting his teachings. Not to mention, used Plato's philosophy as it's background. It started from mystic thinking, which was Plato's understanding of life. Which isn't correct to begin with, because it deems humans can never understand their own life and must be made to answer to a higher authority, because if not, then chaos would ensue.
However, if you ask yourself one question- who is the highest authority in your life? If you say "God", then you're a liar. Plain and simple, especially if you're following the instruction manual known as the bible. The book was manipulated long before anyone ever read it.
The fact is that the first five book are not even Christianity, it was stole from the Jew or Judaism. And, since Paul's methodology of thinking is based on Plato's mystic thinking, it's been deemed a person would have to be intellectually dishonest with themselves to believe a word of it. You want to be dishonest with yourself, then how can I believe or have faith in anything you say?
You believe what you want to believe for your own life and living through it. That's nice. But, under no circumstances are you to use those beliefs to invade someone's life? It isn't yours to bother with in the first place. Religion is useless when people are being responsible with their life. This includes understanding it? People seek religion because it's mystic based thinking gives them answers to feel comfortable about believing. What they fail to realize is that they are not actually being honest with themselves about being responsible with their life or living in this world.
Acts 26:9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
Acts 26:10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
Obviously Paul was talking about his time PRIOR to his conversion. Paul did not have this kind of power after his conversion, matter of fact, he was jobless from the damascus experience onward - except to preach the gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one BORN OUT OF DUE TIME.
1 Corinthians 15:9 FOR I AM THE LEAST OF THE APOSTLES, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am
Dig Paul for what he is
Respect
____________
Yes many saw where he was false after they read my hub.
Those who do not have eyes to see, or ears to hear, are reprobates
and not of God.
Do you mind giving the mame of that hub, to make it easier to find? I would be interested in reading it.
Why do people say that the NT church began in the first century?
The NT church didn't exist until the New Testament (Bible) was constructed in 326 AD.
All opposition to this church and its doctrine was eliminated one way or another.
To the victor go the spoils.
A person can believe in God and Jesus and NOT agree with everything that this church said was TRUTH.
I'm sure all of those other churches which were destroyed, taught some truths that this one rejected.
Kinda like today, there were many different denominations until the Roman Empire constructed one, and eliminated the rest.
If the same thing were to happen today; everyone would say that no one but the devil would do such of a thing.
Think about it; .......
Why do people say that the NT church began in the first century?
The NT church didn't exist until the New Testament (Bible) was constructed in 326 AD.
All opposition to this church and its doctrin was eleminated one way or another.
To the victor go the spoils.
A person can believe in God and Jesus and NOT agree with everything that this church said was TRUTH.
I'm sure all of those other churches which were destroyed, taught some truths that this one rejected.
Kinda like today, there were many different denominations until the Roman Empire constructed one, and eleminated the rest.
If the same thing were to happen today; everyone would say that no one but the devil would do such of a thing.
Think about it; .......Many many many people have
and you are just completely and totally and utterly wrongWhat exactly in my statement is utterly wrong?
Hi jerami.
sorry for the delay.
I thought i should research some more just to be sure.
Why do people say that the NT church began in the first century?
Because it did and it continued until the 5th century however it was a small number by then. The ephesus church did have its candlestick removed as per Rev 1 and eventually all of them did.
You see a church, like a company, or a country or nation is only as strong as its leader. This is why i have said that after adam fell all the inhabitants of the garden were kicked out... because this is what happened to the early church.. the good leaders died and the not so good ones followed and eventually false doctrine became their bane.
All opposition to this church and its doctrine was eliminated one way or another.
It was false doctrine that brought the demise. Much of Gnosticism ruined the pure path. It was not so much persecution, persecution spread the word to, eventually, the british isles.
God tried so hard to eliminate all the false ways that people thought would bring them to him or him to them. In the OT he had them killed and since my research i wish it had been this way again.
False doctrine.
And so many people could care about the narrow way.
I offer you an apology. My harshness was unfounded. You are not utterly wrong. So Sorry!
Im a christian so i know what christianity is all about. I know the fact that Jesus Christ is the only and only true God...other religions are not real. One day you will see.
But, as a responsible person we should not discriminate others based on religion.we shold tolerate all religions.Okay fine, i'll wait.. =P
(My sincere apologies to you all but that sounds weird when we just talk about ourselves ...are you guys some sort of missionary or working for them??)
I don't respect them who convert their religion because they lose faith from their own religion, someday he/she may lose it again.
If you can't respect or favor the religion you're born with then i don't think you can respect any other, though i am not a religious person but i personally feel this. =/..and PEACE.
I have read little bit bible (not much) but i did see "passion of the christ" (i am not sure how close to the reality that movie is, but i did cry(maybe i was too young at that time when i was released) when i saw "Lord Christ" suffering and felt bad for whatever had happened with him but again i'd stick with my words "RESPECT YOUR OWN RELIGION, IF YOU REALLY WANNA RESPECT OTHER."
Actually, Samuel, if you want to get techinical regarding the word of God as stated in the Bible, God's name has been hotly debated for generations upon generations but Jesus was not God, Jesus was his son, born to the virgin Mary to be the sole human living to be pure, free of sin, so that he may sacrifice his life for ours to balance the evil which Eve and Adam partook of. Jesus Christ, being the son of God, is not God Himself, nor is he the holy ghost. Proof of this is where Jesus first follows his Father's will to be baptised by the Holy Ghost in the river. If Jesus was God he would not need baptising and if he were the Holy Ghost he would not be baptising himself.
Interesting twist.
However, this contradicts the scriptures, VERY clearly.
Jesus was sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin for the VERY claim you deny!
Hebrews 1;1 Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. 3The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven. 4This shows that the Son is far greater than the angels, just as the name God gave him is greater than their names.
Also confirms WHO Jesus IS.Um, "...he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven..". That actually proves my point that his son, Jesus Christ is NOT, read NOT GOD HIMSELF. Is he powerful? Yes. Is he great? Yes. Is there anything, anywhere that says that God HIMSELF has actually died therefore enacting his inheritance upon his son? NO. I
I try to be fairly neutral about things but if you are going to argue with me, at least make sure that you don't prove my point further {debating 101}. I have been studying the {VERY contradictory Bible since I was a little girl. I have studied under the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Baptists, the Assembly of God, the Lutherans, the Mormans, and even with several of the Jewish persuasion as well as highly educated scholars. I do not need to 'quote the scriptures' to prove my points, anybody could grab a Bible and spit out a psalm or a scripture, but the trick is understanding it in every conceivable way.
It was said that Christians should gather (it does not give a specific day but Sunday was chosen as the last day of the world's creation was His day of rest) and wherever two or more are gathered in His name, He shall be there. Along those lines I have also found it amusing to note that among the ten commandments (which are basically just common sense guidelines), he states that 'thou shalt not worship false idols' and yet the Catholics, among others, have insisted on doing just that by their creation of Saints and even the Pope himself. How greatly do people worship him and others!
The bottom line is that people have read the Bible, interpreted it to their liking and called it religion. Other religions that do not 'jive' as it were with their own are often labled as cults. If people would simply learn to be tolerant and humble a huge portion of the problems of this world would be solved. In realtiy, though the bible strongly advocates for such virtues, a non-religious person can exhibit such behavior and still be good.One more scripture for you.
John 1;1 In the beginning [b] God was the Word, and the Word became flesh".
God Himself took upon Himself flesh, and dwelt among (us) men.
Plain enough?Actually, no. Not when you consider that in Genesis it shows that He lived among men, it was Him who told Cain that he shall be marked so that he should not be harmed while he was to roam for his sin of murder. That was not Jesus, he would not walk among us for many, many years to come.
sitting means: the job is finished and now its time for rest. What do we do after we finish a job, we sit down. It means to stop working the job is done.
Jesus job is done.
on the right hand: obviously God is spirit and very huge so where would this right hand be? God has no hands. Hands are what takes and gives. Hands have power: the right hand is the prominent hand. It takes and gives with authority.
Jesus rested from his work with power and authority.
Now consider that jesus, raised in earthly body
1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
then put on incorruption, immortality
and rested from work with power and authority
There is much persuasive evidence in the bible, especially the gospel of john as to God in jesus.
Paul said the fullness of the godhead bodily
Jesus when he rebuked the sea and wind did not pray to God, Jesus just said 'stop' this is different from the OT when they offered on an altar or prayed that God would do whatever. But jesus just did it on his own.
thats deity.
the many references of I am.
Jesus forgiving sin, only God can do that.
Jesus often says there is no difference between him and God.
Jesus was sinless, only god can do that.. there have been many holy men of God, but each had their own sin(s)
Jesus said he came down from heaven, but that is because God dwelt in him fully.
Jesus used Abba to speak of God, in jewish terms this denotes intimacy between father and son and that had never been heard of before in relation to God and it wasn't the point of the OT either. God is a majestic being, full of awe and fear but jesus is saying something altogether different, God is his father, that he is intimate with God. Okay you might think well as his Son he should have intimacy, BUT, who can institute a new covenant with God? This is jesus rising above the father and negotiating legal contract with Israel. That's unprecedented.
Jesus used Amen before his sentence. Which is saying I am verifying that what i am saying is true. In judaic times the testimony of two or three witnesses verified something. Jesus is saying, i speak of myself. Something again that raises himself above his father. The Son is always obedient to the the father and never usurps him.
Jesus accepted worship, which is a big jewish no no. Not even angels are to be worshiped. One told Daniel to stand up the angel did not want worship. Jesus is lifting himself above the angels now.
There is so much more stuff that persuasively evidences Jesus deity that this post could get hugely long.
At the end of that list i would go as far to purport to you that since the jews lost the name of God and basically did not have one for Him, besides the superstitious belief that no one can pronounce the name of God, God gave them a new name to call him by and that name is Jesus.
"Is there anything, anywhere that says that God HIMSELF has actually died therefore enacting his inheritance upon his son? NO."
YES
3 things are necessary for a transaction of inheritance:
1) there must be a will = bible
2) there must be a recipient = Jesus
3) there must be a death = cross
"If people would simply learn to be tolerant and humble a huge portion of the problems of this world would be solved"
Tolerance is often not effective in this world. Ghandi for example. Protesting has often shaken governments and saved wild species of animals.
Tolerance in the bible is rare and when it is applied all hell has broken out. You see, people by habit rely on their own understanding to interpret the bible and this is evident most prominently by catholicism, as you well stated they do things that are non scriptural. Now how did you come to notice that these things were not according to scripture, by reading scripture. Kudos. People who read the bible and pray for understanding or really want the bible to convince them of what is right and wrong get this sort of revelation, but those who have bias or agendas and have not this desire for biblical truths, end up making their own conclusions and purporting wrongness. The purpose of the spirit is to reveal the word of God but that is not even a blanket situation, the person has to need to want to be taught by that spirit, which is God, and not be about their own criteria.
The reading of scripture is paramount in being able to know what is acceptable and what is not. As per, tolerance, we look to the book of Joshua and we see that upon entering the promised land there were battles aplenty and God told them not to be tolerant but to wipe them out, which they did not do, and thus, those same nations are a thorn in the side of Israel unto this very day. Harsh truth, but the ends sometimes does justify the means.
Christians are to be tolerant in loving ways, which needs definition. The amount of love a person can show can only be given by the amount of love a person is able to give. Some people are not loving by nature, they are just nice and kind. Love wears many hats, sometimes being strict and enforcing, even disciplinary and sometimes looking the other way or turning the other cheek. Each person loves as each person is capable and that is between them and their relationship with God.
So to be tolerant is fine but to be overly tolerant is not fine in fact it can be damaging. For instance someone walks toward a cliffs edge and we are tolerant of that persons path so much we say nothing, well the outcome is obvious. IF God were overly tolerant, Jesus would not have been here, israel may probably still be slaves in Egypt, i think you get my point._________________________
So everyone but you are wrong? You cannot be taught because you know everything?
The New Covenant says we will not need a teacher because those of God will have God’s words, laws etc written in their heart.
We are to rely on our own walk with God.
As we get closer to him, we understand his word more and more.
If we never grow in truth, we’re not his.
Please show me where it says the new covenant is that we are saved by grace.
You’re adding to and taking away from the word.the laws written in our hearts refers to our conscience. God did not write the Mosaic laws on our hearts.
saved by grace refers to repentance, jesus on the cross, what God will do to bless, his permission, his mercy. Grace refers to a lot of things but not the law of moses or the talmud.
Gods entire whole complete work is full of grace.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they
Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace:
Its all Gods grace, we get nowhere except He allow it.
Righteousness by the law is over. Righteousness by works is over.
So what is left?
Grace: the divine influence upon the heart
We can't do the works, our own efforts won't make us sin less
Jesus said "without me you can do nothing" and he meant, on a daily basis. Jesus also said, remain "connected to the vine". Our connection to the vine is what merits Gods grace.
Grace: permission to go forward
We lean on Him to fulfill his will, its that relationship thing again, and His spirit in us enables us to do all things. Not our own good deeds which are called 'works', but him in us and through us.
Remember Jeremiah how God said to Jeremiah, I have formed you from the womb. That's Gods grace. We think how could jeremiah have continued under the duress and pressure and personal loss. Gods grace.
Recall, God chose his people not because they were many or great or the best people on the planet. This is Gods grace.
Grace is not a new concept, but since people do not conform to the Mosaic law or the talmud laws or any written laws,
[b] what else is there? [b]
Jesus christ died for all human beings that whosoever should believe shall be saved.
Its all Gods grace, which we believe by faith that we shall be saved and not perish.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
I take nothing away from the word, you don't add enough_______
Again, Please show me where it says Grace is the new covenant.
Show me where Yahshua taught that faith saves us
Do not quote Paul Only Yahshua
This is a simple requestLuke 18:10-14. How bout Luke 23:40-43. Oh and mathew 7:23. Jesus himself said in John 6:28-29 to a crowd that had gathered. They had asked him what work must they do that God requires. Jesus said "the work is this, to believe in the one he has sent".
The teaching is not just one verse that gives an understanding but many,and in combination of understanding scripture as a whole rather than just one verse. To understand this, scripture says salvation is by grace alone least any man boast, and faith with out works is dead. But put the two together along with you are a new person in Christ and then we have a understanding
_______________
But where did Yahshua say it. You're quoting Paul and Luke again.
You can't find it can you.
Grace means mercy and God has always had mercy on usI'm gonna let you answer your own question
Without the Law, what remains?___________________
Since the Law was never done away with, it doesn't apply in this instance.
Face it, you follow Paul not Yahshuaahhh but the law is done away with.
Why did christ die on the cross then?______
He did not die to do away with God's Law
I always post scripture to back up what I say.
Without using Paul please give scripture where Jesus said the law was done away with.
Paul has really fooled a lot of people and killed Yahshua's teachings and kept people away from true salvation by leading them away from God.
Exactly what Paul wanted to doSo you don't want to tell me why christ died on the cross
"Christ" died on the cross for the same reason all the other people died on the cross. He broke the law and the Romans got pissed off with him. Why is he so special? Lots of people got crucified. So what?
___________________________
Because He knew that he was to fulfill every word the Prophets prophesied about him
Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth
Yahshua said many times…
Matthew 26”
53. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54. But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
He let everything happen that the prophets said would happen, because he didn’t want any of God’s words to be voided
Yahshua’s Life (He showed us how to live in complete love and the will of God) not his death will save us if we walk as he did.
How can you miss these facts? (according to the writings)Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
How can you miss this?___________________
How did you, being a great Christian full of Wisdom and Truth, send me, a married woman, an email like this?
brotheryochanan on HubPages
has sent you this message.
(email address verified)
your yummy with a good head on your shoulders. Keep up the good work.
John
lol
can't you interpret that correctly either?
nowhere on your profile said you were married.
Back Then i was not so full of wisdom and truth, i am not that same guy today. I said 'yummy' because I was talkin about your looks; it doesn't speak of your salty personality... lol.
You look just like a girlfriend i once had.
If there's a next time i'll try to compliment someone who can handle it lol
I take back the good head on your shoulders and the good work.
If you accepted the book of acts chap 15 you would read about Peter and James debating about how to handle the situation of the judiasers who said, the gentiles must be circumcised.
Peter said something great.
" Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
and the resolution was:
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Its okay to eat shellfish now :0)
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 NOT according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
"If Jesus was God he would not need baptizing and if he were the Holy Ghost he would not be baptizing himself."
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Jesus, until his death was under the Law, which was abolished at his death on the cross.
This new covenant, as prophesied:
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Matthew 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
So john the baptist was part of this new covenant, he prepared the way. It is not unseemly that Jesus would adhere to Johns mission to "fulfill all righteousness".
As flesh and blood, Jesus did need to be baptized. This is part of God humbling himself, God in Jesus and Jesus being sinless of course did not need to be baptized except that this baptism was part of the way that God instituted - even God does not sidestep his principles.
Rather then poke at religion no matter which kind it is. Why would you ask a question like that? It is such a stereo type. Like Melissa Barrett I am a christian also and do not agree either. In my opinion someone gave you a bad impression or missinformation to think we are that way. There are different types of people and beliefs. just because one church associated with that or act that way does not mean they are all that way.Im sorry if someone led you to believe that or hurt you in some way. I have friends of variety of religions including your anti- christ but I dont point fingers. Everyone is entitled to what they believe and how they interpret. Not "all" of them of that religion.
Micku St. wrote
. . the trouble is Jesus didn't say spread the message "to all nations", He specifically identified that they were to go to "Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth";
=========
me
The problem is with translation ? The word that was translated as earth had a number of meanings. I don't think that it was ever (origionaly) intended to mean "the planet earth".
For one example, Ezra 1:2 King Cyrus was given all the kingdoms of the EARTH. Did he really have dominion over the entire planet Earth?I have had enough of my part of share, i am outta here. Man this is a never ending topic. =/ and nothing productive.
The best that I can understand about what happened at the council of Nicea was that they argued about a lot of the little stuff....... while somebody was getting away with some bigger stuff.
If ya know what I mean?I do believe in the God of Abraham, and that Jesus was the Messiah as prophesied; but I do have doubts as to whether or not there was some schanigans going on in 326 AD.
After all, the Emperor was ultimate authority over the church for almost a century.
I'm pretty sure that the Emperor got something out of the deal.
Just saying it like it was.
Every body gets to figure out-of- that what they want to.Is the Bible really the word of God? if so, why are there so many editions of it? Did Man edit it and improve the original word of God?
Unlike the Holy Quran, it has never been changed for the past 1400 years. Thus making it a miracle.An unchanged book does not constitute a miracle.
Many books are unchanged. Snow white and the 7 dwarves. Harry potter etc.
What makes the bible unique this way is either
man has striven for more accuracy
or man has striven to make it more untrue
Both are correct
as for the quran not being changed there probably is a death penalty for those that do attached somewhere.
I'm a Christian Agnostic myself (a bit oxymoronic, I know) and I certainly don't think that everyone else is wrong. I do wonder why most Christians (especially hardcore Catholics) feel that everyone else is wrong too, but I figure it's just what they've been brought up to believe. It still does amaze me how closed minded they can be, and not just even them though... anyone of any religion.
A lot of Christians tell me that I'm going to hell because I'm "Christian Agnostic". The reason I claim C/A is because while I follow the Christian faith and the belief in the Christian god blindly, I know that I might very well be wrong and that there very well might not be a God. Nobody knows the answer for sure. I do not know what is real, but I believe. I'm also a huge fan of Buddhism, really.
But of course, that is my opinion and my beliefs. I am not right, although in some ways I can imagine them being justifiable. What matters to me as a Christian, and just as a good human being, is to love everyone, respect everyone's thoughts and beliefs (although I have a hard time with this when it comes to hatefulness), and advocate human rights.
Everyone is different thoughThen you will get what you expect.
Mixing and matching to create a self styled God doesn't work in nuclear reactors either.
One does not sit down and put together a nuclear reactor and expect it to work. The same for many other things to.
God has gone through a lot of work to make his path known.
We need to let the bible convince us and then come to God by the way the bible says too. ( as in the OT there was one way, and the NT is jesus christ)
As to many people saying there is one way, there is and it is narrow not wide, man made or imagined.Are you saying that it's bad then? I can't quite understand where you're coming from. As for the bible, I don't let it dictate me and my choices. I've read it, I've taken the good parts out of it (love thy neighbor, accept everyone, etc.) and have applied them to life, but there's certainly quite a lot of stuff in there that I don't believe in or follow (mainly the whole gay thing being wrong, but again it's my opinion). I look at it as a basic life-guide. For starters, somewhat.
The bible gives good advice for living this life in the flesh, but Jesus is the central character, not tony robbins. Its good to pick and choose what one can do today, in other words, what one aspires to retain and practice, but Jesus points a way to God, not just a way to live this life.
If we only do part of what the good news proclaims and leave out God as the central focus point, we drop the ball or strike out, even, miss the point.
There may have been other mystics roaming around, but Jesus consistently denied his own ability and made straightforward mention that God was responsible for everything he did, unlike the others who made themselves to be something great.
My feeble old mind can't remember all those Chapter # & verses #s, that I do still remember the context of... sorry. But I do remember a number of places in the OT where God promises that when the person turns away from their sins that they are forgiven.
Makes me wonder?? Did Jesus die for those that didn't repent?
Was I not forgiven, way back around 30 AD for sins that I committed in 1967?
I was forgiven before I even did the dastardly deed (?); and before I repented (?).
Does that mean that it is OK for me to do it some more? Heaven forbid, NO!
Don't we remember how much those things distracted us from the path that we should have traveled? How much hurt they caused ourselves and others? We just don’t know what we don’t know concerning where we would be today had we not done those things. We have already punished ourselves in ways that we know not.
The point I was making is that repentance has always been a way to obtain salvation.
Jesus didn't invent it.
Which brings up the question; (again) why did Jesus die on the cross; If not to save the non-repentant also?
Just a question.
I have not bought into this idea, and I haven't shot it down out of the tree either. I’m just looking at it.
Is it not also a sin to judge harshly, someone else for doing that which I used to do?
And if I keep on doing just that, did Jesus die on the cross for this sin of which I may not know that I do?
I don't know? I guess I'm just rambling on.
By; gotta go off doing something else for a while.
.Jesus died for those that repent.
It was john the baptists message
and jesus followed up on it.
christians are in a different category. We have repented of our past sins. We do repent of our daily sins and if we do not repent for sins then we are backsliding - that means we are not caring enough to notice our sins and deal with them and eventually we can be fully backslidin, which means unrepentant.
But we do not lose our reward unless we become atheist.
Once repentant we enter into the kingdom and by sincere effort we become more christian and deeper into the kingdom.
30 fold, 60 fold and 100 fold.
Jesus died for all... who believe in him... not for those who don't.
There is no universal salvation except by way of the cross of christ. Those who ignore the cross, well lets say its the same as offering strange fire on an altar in the OT.Thanks for your earlier reply.
I could be wrong (sure I am somewhat) but I think that there are but a few misunderstandings in the overall philosophy held by religion..
One, I believe, is that "The Kingdom" of God is a different level than that of heaven and they each have different requirements for maintaining a position in them.
Such as the 144000 sinless followers of Christ which is said to be Ruptured.
Never a foul word came out of their mouths.
Never have they been with a woman (sexually) etc. etc.
I think that these 144000 will attain a higher level than I or anyone else who have to be cleansed of our sins.
Kinda like a brand New shirt in my closet hangs on a different rack than those others which have been worn and washed. Sometimes I wear a new shirt only once before I throw it away ... IF I got too much grease on it!
Good thing I'm not God ... or a shirt.
I know this sounds crazy (cause I very well may be) I'm going to post it anyway.I've never thought about it like that. Very good thought! Gives you something to really think about, doesn't it?
The 144,000 in Revelation are the 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. It is the multitude(so many that can't be counted) in White Robes that would be the rest of us.
DoubleScorpion ....
The 144,000 in Revelation are the 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. It is the multitude(so many that can't be counted) in White Robes that would be the rest of us.
=============
I could be wrong? But this is my opinion and it makes perfect sense to me. I have been trying to prove this concept wrong for over a decade and am unable to do it.
This has always been a major issue for me, that those that are seen under the alter; and are given white robes and told to wait yet a "Little Season" are told this when the fifth seal was opened. and before the seventh.
Before the trumpets and the bowls.
I have to believe that these that are seen under the alter are the same as the Children of Daniels people, discussed in Daniel 12:1.
However; through out the book of Daniel, he has visions of there only being four kingdoms to be given dominion over that Hebrew peoples.
When Daniel chapter eleven begins, the second kingdom currently has control over Israel and Judea.
The eleventh chapter describes how Persia loses power to Greece, and then how Greece loses this power to the fourth kingdom (the Roman Empire).
And THEN, the little horn, the king that rises up to power, after the first ten kings, replacing three kings (three kings after the first ten)
When the 14th emperor of the Roman Empire (fourth beast) comes to his end ; Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 AT THAT time Michael stands up for the children of Daniels people and some are redeemed from among men and many from the graves.
I do not believe that this is the first resurrection, but it is the first offering. It was common to give the first fruits unto the Lord, and then the Harvest, and then gleening of the fields.
I feel that chapter 11 and 12:1 are absolutely TIME specific.
This does not reveal beforehand; the year month or day that this is to happen.
But it does describe an event that is to happen, as a sign that; at some time in THEIR future,(536 AD) when this happens, the time has come.
Hadrian was the 14 Emperor, and he died in 138 AD.
Hadrian was the "Little Horn"
At this time there was no longer a nation of Israel. Those prophesy which were given to these people were fulfilled at that time.
The Nation of Israel had come to "Their" end of days as Jesus said that they would. The Hebrew people was carried away into the wilderness where she shall be feed there, hiding from the face of the Serpent for 1260 days. These are prophetic days which are different than our days.
But then again, this is just my opinion as to what I read when I read what is written.
I don't think that I have interpreted anything in any way which disagrees with anything that Gabriel or Jesus is said to have said.
Jesus did say "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. So in my mind everything fits inline with what Jesus and Gabriel said.
No one wants to discard all of those interpretations of scripture which they have learned, which after much time passes; (many centuries) ... somehow seems to have turned to stone. As If these interpretations were written on stone tablets. AS IF ?
I don't mean to be argumentative, I just feel SSOooo strongly about this. And have many, many issues such as this.I am not going to dispute your thoughts or theories. I agree the Book of Revelations is taken from or quite simular to the vision talked about in the Book of Daniel.
I was just pointing out what is mentioned in the book of revelations.
Rev 7:4-8 the 144,000 of the 12 tribes.
And Rev 7:9-17 explains those in white.
You are a nice person; and a friend.
Well, I never felt that one ever gave me any hard time; all are friends here and like one hub-family and we share our information with one another in a very friendly atmosphere.
I like everybody; even the man in trouble; I mean "A Troubled Man"The idea of "live and let live" is a noble idea however for the Christian believer they have a purpose for spreading that message. In the end only one religion will be right and if that religion winds up being the Christian faith then how bad it will have been if people didn't get the word that this was and is the only way to eternal life.
Having said that it's still a matter of choice as to whether one wants to believe or not.It is not only Christians... but people belonging to all religions think that they are only one's who are right... The preachers and heads of those religions have spread such messages. Why can't people just leave the religion aside and be just good human beings?
You say Christians accuse others and what are you doing yourself. It is all very well to find faults with people. In my view, my Lord and yours whether you beleive it or not, in all glory, laud and honor gave up all and bore excruciatinng pain, sorrow and betrayal all for his love of you and me. How can such love not make us vibrant, passionate and desperate to make you own it too. Christians have undergone crucification, been thrown to lions, borne every form of predjudice, punishment, persucution and massacres. What makes us so strong, all we all not the same human kind, its not us, its our Lord, Christ. We possess atleast a small degree greater than yours of other religions or myths, or whatever you want to call them and we want to show you the only true faith so you may be loved, cared for and heard as long as you live. God bless you and show you the true path soon. Amen.
Why is it that all you have to do to get 350 replies on a thread is post something with "Christian" in the title?
I think that is common among all religions and their perceptions of each other eg: Mormon v. Christians or JW v.Catholisisum
Personally, I think there are a couple of ideas all who participate in such a discussion would be wise to consider; first, what is my own disposition, what prompts me and informs, not my conclusion or arrived at view, but what informs my approach to investigation . . . what do I start with as I come to consider this matter? And secondly, am I objectively sure I am not practicing what I am quick, and even belligerent, to fault others for?
On the first point; the charge is commonly aimed at Christians that they are either too unimaginative, lack the critical thinking required, or are too emotionally frail to escape the religion they were born into. That is the starting point for many who engage in his debate, basically, many begin their argument from the already established in their own head position that they are smarter and more bold, etc, then any Christian specifically because they themselves are not Christian. Before any evidence, argument, or reason is considered the Christian is addressed as a buffoon because he actually believes all the foolishness the non-believer is smart and bold enough to have escaped.
Yet, while the non-believer faults the Christian for merely believing whatever he's been taught to believe, while the picture is painted of an emotionally weak intellectual incompetent based solely on the conclusion he's come to, no corresponding argument is set forth from the Christian that the unbeliever is merely acting-out his departure from the authority of his parents home, that he is seeking to define his individual persona by a knee-jerk rebellion of whatever ideas defined the home and culture he is trying to escape from. The unbeliever too often starts out, before any evidence, argument, or reason is considered, with the assumption that his view is the view that results from critical reasoning and the Christian view is arrived at specifically because of the lack of critical thinking - he assumes from the concluded idea (not any actual deliberation over argument and reason) that he is the smart one, the emotionally sound one, the one who has honestly and objectively thought about all this . . . while the Christian is the guy who just believes whatever he's told, because he's dumb and scared.
And this leads to the second point, faulting others for the very thing you are doing; the title of this forum is "Why do Christians think everyone else is wrong"? . . . the title suggests that Christians have too unyielding a confidence that they are right and others are wrong - this very same assertion can just as reasonably be made for many unbelievers, read over many of the posts here, many unbelievers approach is simply that they are right and they know the Christian is wrong. Often the unbeliever is demeaning and dismissive toward the Christian - something he would declare to be offensive were the Christian to be aiming such conduct at a Hindu or Muslim, etc.
As much as many Christians, unbelievers too engage in a debate along the lines that they just know they're right and the Christian is obviously wrong, and that the Christian is wrong because he's not as smart and bold and emotionally stable, etc, as the unbeliever imagines himself to be. The unbeliever regularly faults the Christian for the very kind of conduct that he seems to deem legitimate for himself - why . . ? . . because he starts out with the premise that the conclusion, that the other fellow is a Christian, indicates that he himself is the smart and bold one and the other fellow is just stupid to see things differently - as in "Why do unbelievers assume Christians are just wrong"?
Of course, many unbelievers will say they have gone all over this before, they will frequently assert that they themselves were Christians but now know better, and they will often recast some popular but poor scholarship they have scanned or have some cursory familiarity with (the Bible's been altered so many times, that nasty Constantine, etc), but the end result is, they don't think they need to actually consider anything the Christian presents to them, their mind is made up, they know they're right . . . but again, that is the shortcoming the title of this forum aims at Christians.
I was not raised a Christian, I do not follow along with whatever I'm told, I have a good working mind, I don't want to believe anything but what is the truth, I have examined the evidence and with critical reasoning come to the understanding that I have . . . I don't think I'm right and everyone else is wrong, I think we are all wrong in different ways and to varying degrees and I am always eager to better my understand o objective truth and easily and happily believe I can learn from anybody. That is why I tend to back out of these discussions - it becomes grievous and dull to try to talk with someone who isn't honestly listening because he's already made-up his mind and knows that he is right and you are not only wrong but are wrong because your too dumb to see things just the way he does all the while he is blind to the reality that he is practicing the very anti-reason approach he faults others for.The implication is: That Christians think every one else is wrong. Even separate denominations think all others are barkin' at the moon. Atheists think everyone else is wrong. Hindus think everyone else is wrong, Buddhists think everyone else is wrong, as do Democrats and Republicans. Personally, The truth has yet to be determined. Agnosticism is at the very least, honest.
I sort of agree - everyone, even agnostics, think everyone else is wrong . . . however, I cannot ignore the course these discussions almost always seem to go; everyone thinks they are right and others are wrong (or else they would drop their view and take-up the one they did think was right) . . . but we all really know that the Christians really are wrong and that they are especially ugly to think they are right, and that they're wrong because they're dumb and fearful and willing to believe whatever they're told, etc.
For many folks, anything could and might possibly be right, except orthodox, historic, boring old Christianity - that's the one thing that cannot be tolerated. Hinduism, Islam, Voodoo, anything should be respected and recognized as of cultural significant . . . even some mutilated form of Christianity is ok, Christianity with only part of the Bible, Christianity but not any church, Jesus but no Paul, Christianity but with the gnostic texts included, etc, etc.
The West has, admittedly, turned Christianity into yet another corrupt man-made religion largely void of the spiritual reality authentic Christianity is defined by, but the answer isn't to puff yourself (whoever) up with an arrogance that you're smart and bold enough to escape that false Amerivangleism and then aim your contempt at anyone who identifies themselves a Christian - there are Christians who are Christians, not because they're not smart enough or too weak to consider other ideas, but are Christians because they have gone to the texts and studied the historic record and have examined all ideas honestly and thoroughly. Yet they are talked to, often by boobs, who think the mere fact that they are Christians indicates that they are simply not as smart and bold and free-thinking and honest with the facts, etc, as themselves.
I enjoy vigorous debate and the consideration of ideas - but it gets a bit tiring to hear the same repeated lame arguments presented to you like a brilliant guy has just blown your frail little mind because you've never considered any of this before - and all the while you know you're talking to someone whose argument is against a 'Christianity' that have done more vigorous and passionate battle with than they ever will and that they don't even know what authentic Christianity is . . . as they talk to you like they're the critical thinking smart one and you're too dumb to know that nobody believes that anymore.Well agnostics don't really think everyone else is "wrong", per say... it's just they (and I) are able to admit that they don't know the truth, and that anything is possible.
I understand that - however, that means agnostics, at least passively if not actively, think those who believe you can know the truth and that they know it are wrong.
Good point. As a Christian Agnostic myself, I do not believe those who think they CAN know the truth are wrong, but I do think those who think they DO know the truth are.
May I ask, is that based on personal experience? I mean, if you think one can know the truth but say that those who assert they do know the truth you think do not, are you saying that you've yet to meet anyone who you think might know the truth - or are you saying man owns the capacity to know the truth but circumstances (or whatever) make his calling upon that capacity impossible? Like, do you think there could be some out there who do know the truth and you've just not come across them yet, or are you just saying that theoretically our minds can apprehend the truth but circumstances disable or make unusable that capacity?
Part of me believes that, hey, there just might be one person who really does know the truth, but I'm not sure. I also do wonder if we could possibly know the truth, but maybe our minds just cannot handle it? Who knows.
Personally, I take this puzzle as favorable toward Christianity . . . the starting point for Christianity is revelation - Christianity advances that man cannot know God, that man is a material creature existing in time and space while God is the infinite spirit existing in eternity, so that if man is to know anything about God then God is going to have to condescend to reveal Himself because man could not own a capacity to discover or figure Him out. And of course, that is what Christianity asserts itself to be, it is God's own revelation of His truth to man.
Being Christian is actually not based on how much truth we know or who knows it all, indeed much knowledge can actually be a snare to the Christian with pride being the trap.
Christianity is based upon Peoples Personal Relationship with God through Jesus Christ. As the Christian seeks God, God will be found and upon finding God certain requirements will be asked by God that the Christian adhere too. (no its not a check list of the OT Law - This is why Paul said, "let every person be convinced in their own mind what is right and wrong" - I may despise TV and another Christian watches it, who am i to demand he toss the TV or make him feel guilty for watching it - its everyones personal relationship, walk with God. God knows what He wants to do with each Christian life and He is in charge).
Along the 'time well spent', in 'The Way', the Christian will learn things, unlearn things, make errors and repent, grow and mature - this may take an entire lifetime. Abraham, for example, was 87 when promised his seed will be as the stars and 100 yrs old when isaac was born. Did Abraham 'ace' this span of 13yrs. No he did not, but OVERALL, he did and since Abraham remained in 'The Way' he received the promise of God when mans carnal logic dictated otherwise.
So looking for one person with the truth can be a stumbling block as each Christian has their own truths according to their ability to handle such truths. So as people may be exposed to a variety of Christian 'truths', these truths should not be seen as a negative thing if they are contrary because truth is individually perceived and class is always open in the Christian school of life.
And this is the problem when God is removed from the equation.
There is this NOT knowing.
My God is not so small that he does not make himself known.
Fact of the matter is that someone is right and all others will pay the consequences. You see it does not matter what you think or what I think for that matter. There is no other logical answer to why we are here but in the bible. The only book having stood the test of time for hundreds of years. There is not even a book that comes close to being a best seller after hundreds of years. Think about it? Written by 40 authors over 1600 years. All agreeing! The old testament all about law. Kind of like law today. You do the crime, you do the time. Then Jesus was born and being fully God, loved us so much he provided a way of salvation so we all could be saved. Not by works (all religion is man made "works" a paved road to Hell). But by grace he saved all who place their trust in him alone. Please do not make ridicules statements that everyone can be right in what they believe. There is no other source of any authority that can discredit the bible
The reason Cristians or anyone else for that matter would think there right and everyone else is wrong is NARROWMINDEDNESS and ARROGANCE.Most Christians have been thumped over the head with a bible(severly corrupted doctrine)so many times and from such a young age that is all they know.They dance on the celing with JESUS and forget that there are BILLIONS of others lots of them good people that have just as important belief systems as them!Myself I'm an existcenelist so i don't let them bother me!
. . . so, should I actually say 'I rest my case' . . ?
Since we are all right, and I can believe what I want. Your also not so intelligent. Please so not respond or you will look like you think your right
does anyone undestand that we can intelectulize the life right out of a bird? open it up; looking for life, and not finding it cause, with the first insision; the quest was lost!
If you are looking for the proof of life ;(?), you must look within.
Or, we will never find it. Cause over there is too far away. God would not have hidden it way over there! where we could not find it?
It is within our reach, no matter where we are.
No matter where we think that will be; at some time in the future? ... right or wrond? ... that is where we are going to be! Just wait and see???
No matter what your problems are???? No matter how fast you travel; when you get there. there you are! and your baggage follows soon after,
Some day we are going to have to fess up! Some day we are going to have to admitt to the truth.
That is the way it is no matter what we think!I skipped over a lot of the pages. Did anyone bring up that the bible we know was written over 200 years after the fact or the whole council of Nicea making Jesus divine?
You are stumbling over what many folks seem to stumble over regarding our apprehension of the reliability of what we find presented in the Bible . . . the complaint is, basically, the old telephone game. The oft repeated argument of so many is, 'how can we trust the Bible, certainly over the many centuries and the many revisions it has been altered again and again, and some men surely must have deliberately inserted or removed portions to support their own doctrines so as to control the people?', etc, etc. If you find the message of the Bible speaking to your heart as you read it, if you personally come to believe that it is God's own inspired word, that is a private acknowledgment of spiritual evidence - however, it can generally and publicly be demonstrated archaeologically, historically, and textually that the Bible we have today is virtually the same Bible that Christians originally had.
Just briefly, to suggest the kind of documentation that exists:
The earliest copies we have of any writings attributed to Aristotle are from over 1,400 years after Aristotle died - and we have 5 copies of copies of copies of texts. The earliest copies we have of any writings attributed to Pliny (a Roman historian) are from over 750 years after he died - and we have 7 copies of copies of copies of texts. The earliest copies we have of any writings attributed to Caesar are from over 1,000 years after he died - and we have 10 copies of copies of copies of texts.
This theme continues all the way to Shakespeare, etc. Much of what we accept and teach as fact, based on historic evidence, is not nearly so overwhelmingly supported by the historic evidence as the textual reliability of the Bible. We have extant over 5,300 ancient Greek manuscripts and over 10,000 Latin Vulgates of the Bible, many within a mere 40 years after the originals were authored. In addition, we have extant letters, sermons, commentaries, etc, from 1st century men, men who were intimate students and companions of Peter and John, etc, and these various letters, sermons, commentaries, etc, contain enough quoted passages of Scripture to construct the entire New testament and nearly all of the Old Testament - and it is the same Bible text we have today. There is more solid evidence that the shepherd David became king of Israel, that Jesus rose from His grave alive, and that Paul wrote to the church at Rome exactly what our modern English translations say he wrote to the church at Rome, more solid evidence of these Biblical accounts than there is evidence that there even was an English playwright named 'Shakespeare'.While I respect your opinions and beliefs I find nothing that supports your argument for the new testament. I am familiar with the dead sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. Neither validate your statement for the new testament. I can be incorrect as I am not an authority on the matter so I respectfully ask for your source on this information from a credible institution.
Bruce M Metzger: phd. New testament book author, in all 50 books either authored or edited. The New testament: Its background, growth and content; the Text of the New testament; The Canon of the New Testament; Manuscripts of the Greek Bible; Textual Commentary on the Greek NT; The Oxford Companion of the Bible; co-editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible and general editor of the more than 25 volumes in the New Testament Tools and Studies. Masters degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and both a masters degree and a doctorate from Princeton University. Resident scholar at Tyndale House, cambridge. Currently professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seninary after a 46yr career teaching the New Testament. Chairman of the New Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, and serves on the Kuratorium of the Betus Latina Institute at the Monastery of Beuron, Germany. Past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the International Society for New Testament Studies, and the North American Patristic Society.
(begin quote)
we have unical manuscripts, written in all capital Greek letters, about 306 of these as early as the third century. Codex Sinaiticus, which is the only complete New Testament in unical letters, Codex Vaticanus, not quite complete dating to about 350ad. Minuscule, roughly 800ad, 2,856 of these. Lectionaries, New testament Scripture in the sequence it was to be read in the Early Churches - 2,403 of these have been cataloged. Total of Greek manuscripts at 5,664.
In addition to Greek manuscripts, 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, 8,000 in Ethiopian, Slavic and Armenian.
In all about 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament.
"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.
(end quote)
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former British Museum director and author of The Palaeography of Greek Papyri. Kenyon said "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament".I'm sorry you did three days of research for no reason. If you read my post I was arguing about the books that were left out of the new testament.
Here's a little gem for you while you go back to the drawing board.
(31:17) "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."
God sounds awesome in this.
You should research Horus as well and find out why Jesus stole his whole story.http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html
Apparently you do notAgain, I will not open a bible.creation.scienceandhistoryarewrong.com website
However I noticed you went three places down in your google search.
Dunno what your talking about
31:17 means nothing with a book name
You just wanted to know a source for New testament reliability and you got it. These are the kind of people i choose to obtain information from rather than some insipid atheist site.
Why the big side step of topic, instead of just a thank you.
I liked what MickeySr said and there's other and more corroborative facts about New Testament documentation and Early Church canon that very persuasively lead everyone to the summation that these documents are very well preserved and accurate.Again I don't know if it's done by a selfserving coincidence or a reading comprehension problem but you keep avoiding my argument and arguing against something I agree with.
I should also state that I agree the bible we see now is more or less unchanged for the past 2000 years.( I mean the slavery still there I would imagine they would have taken that out by now if they could have) It's more on the non canon scriptures that exist from the council.
What you replied to with "I respect your opinions and beliefs" were not by opinions or beliefs, they are the historic record . . . my opinion is that it is dishonest to discount the textual evidence and my belief is that the Bible is God's revelation of truth, but that the English Bible that we have today is a reliable version of what the original Christians had.
However, I'm confused as to your position; first you say "I find nothing that supports your argument for the new testament" but then you say "I agree the bible we see now is more or less unchanged for the past 2000 years" . . . those are contradictory statements - what exactly do you find fault with, only and specifically that (as you suggest) The Council of Nicaea manufactured a new doctrine making Jesus divine?I'm sorry allow me to clarify my position further. I believe the text in the king James bible that form the new testament are, by and large unchanged from whenever they were written. When they were written I take issue with. Also the plethora of other scriptures not in the king James bible that exist I take issue with. Finally Jesus divinity from the council I take issue with.
LFW > When they were written I take issue with <
Are you saying you don't believe the NT scriptures were authored by and when they assert themselves to be authored by and when - are you saying you count them to be counterfeit documents falsely ascribed to the apostles of Jesus? Or are you saying that the actual authorship of the apostles in the 1st century makes them incvalid as Scripture?
LFW > the plethora of other scriptures not in the king James bible that exist I take issue with <
Are you saying you disagree with the content of the gnostic texts and other ancient false 'Christian' writings as not divine revelation? I agree. Or are you saying you do not count other religious texts, like the Koran & Bhagavad Gita, to be authoritative Scripture? I agree. Or are you questioning what should and should not be included in the Christian Bible as Scripture?
LFW > Jesus divinity from the council I take issue with <
If you are here asserting that the Christian teaching that Jesus is God incarnate is a manufactured doctrine concocted at and by The Council of Nicaea, that is simply a poor, but, commonly poor reading of history. Imagine this scenario; say people on HubPages more and more began using the word "bullshit" and more and more some began to complain about it. Then suppose HubPages decided to have a big meeting to address the matter, and suppose they determined that the word "bullshit" is sometimes the only word that can properly express what it's intended to express and so they issue a formal notice that using the word "bullshit" is permissible on HubPages.
If you would read their formal notice would you think HubPages just invented a new word and was now directing everyone to use it? The ancient church councils did not invent the ideas of Jesus' divinity or what books make-up the Bible, etc, etc - the ancient councils were called and tended to well established and commonly practiced teaching that some were regularly fussing about . . . the church had always taught the truth that Jesus is the God of all creation, the councils work was not to concoct a doctrine that was already commonly taught, their work was to denounce as heresy those who taught otherwise.
The problem today is people starting out with an opinion, and an agenda, and then skimming through the historic record looking for items they can snatch-up to 'prove' what they already thought was right - for those who actually want to learn and to know what the real truth is, for those who read without an agenda, the conclusion of history is completely different, and undeniable.
LFW > If you would like to address slavery in the bible as gods truth <
The fact of slavery, the fact that it has existed throughout history is accurately recorded in the Bible - it is not "God's truth" that some men should be slaves to another in any sense that God approves of slavery . . . I'm not sure what you're asking here?How do you explain the Nag Hammadi Library? More specifically the gnostic gospel of st Thomas.
Even the discovery of the book of Mary.
You completely skipped over the Arian debate. Which I guess is convenient, however, I can produce credible institutions where I get my facts from.
I guess it's my turn to be confused. What is the word of god? Is it everything in the bible verbatim? Or are you picking and choosing?
There are a lot more scriptures which can be quoted that show the bibles stance on slavery.
If you are to argue that slavery was mans idea or only accepted by man and not god, then you are admitting all of the bible is not gods word and is open for interpretation.I'm not sure what exactly to tell you about the gnostic or Arian or any other ancient literature - there are tons upon tons of texts that are not included as Scripture in the Christian Bible, ancient and contemporary. The Mormons claim that the angel Moroni provided Joseph Smith with a whole new set of Scriptures - are you suggesting that any and all texts that speak of God or address the life and teachings of Jesus should be counted as divinely inspired Scripture and included in the Bible?
The OT prepared the way for the promised Messiah, in the fullness of time Jesus came, He called to Himself a small band of apostles to document and proclaim the truth of His coming and work . . . after His death and resurrection the Holy Spirit was given, the apostles were inspired by God to depose His revealed truth, these writings were kept and collected and bound together as the Bible, God's word. I count all and only the Bible to be God's own revelation of His truth, and so, the only authoritative Scripture.
As I say, there are tons of extra-Biblical texts, I have many, many of them - what Polycarp wrote was not inspired Scripture, what Ignatius wrote was not inspired Scripture, what gnostics wrote was not inspired Scripture, what Arius and his followers wrote was not inspired Scripture, what Charles dickens wrote was not inspired Scripture, what a lot of other writing is isn't inspired Scripture.
How do you come to assert that slavery is approved of by God, and how do you conclude that if I (or whoever) believes slavery was not approved of by God that we are denying the Bible to be God's word? I don't see your argument - the Bible talks about adultery, monarchy rather than democracy, riding on donkeys rather than driving cars, etc, etc - I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I don't see how the fact of slavery being mentioned in the Bible indicates that God approves of slavery? Do you know of some passage where God declares His approval of slavery?This sounds like a rule to me.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Either that's the word of god or the word of man. Respond directly to this question without a long winded preamble please.
And
The bible we see today is made from the council of Nicea. There they decided what books went into the new testament. Where and when Jesus was born, and his divinity. I present these as facts as this is what is taught by institutions of education.
Again, I am willing to admit my error if you bring about evidence from a credible source but you still provide nothing.LFW > Respond directly to this question without a long winded preamble please <
I'm not too good at avoiding long-winded anything, preamble, body, postlude, whatever . . . I will do my best to be direct, but, you're not required to engage me, this is a voluntary discussion - and, let me be clear; I'm not trying to 'prove' you wrong, I'm not trying to convince you that my view is right - I am merely sharing with you my own understanding of these things. And, I must add, your interest to avoid any 'preamble' does cause me to wonder if a cursory skimming over the historic record is the root of your flawed information (I'll get to The Council of Nicaea in a bit).
As to the issue of slavery; you first must understand what it is you are talking about, what you are objecting to - the slavery in question (the OT culture of servitude) was not at all what we think of as our own antebellum slavery of the south. I don't think any manner of involuntary service is good, and I don't believe God approves of any manner of involuntary, forced servitude - however, what this passage is talking about simply is not what we think of as slavery.
This ancient world form of bond-servant existed before God called Abraham and before He gave us His law through Moses, this was part of the ancient working economy well before and long after the state of Israel . . . it was already an established practice. What these laws were doing was providing protections for those sold into service. Just as God, in His word, sets forth legal boundaries and proceedings and consequences for adultery and theft, etc, He is here not condoning or approving of slavery (just as He doesn't of adultery or theft) but is making actionable by law the violations men cannot exceed.
God does eventually move men to end slavery completely, just as he does multiple wives, animal sacrifice, etc - but He's not going to reach down and make everything just as it should be in one instant. and we would all bitch about if He did . . . He is moving in history and in His people to overcome sin. To use that reality to assert that the Bible is then not legitimately His word is a ludicrous argument - God doesn't stop us from practicing slavery so we don't think He wrote the Bible?
As to The Council of Nicaea; someone must have published a book on The Council of Nicaea of very poor scholarship, but a very big seller, because the false notion you assert is a very popular, very common false assertion . . . I didn't see it but someone told me the notion that The Council of Nicaea 'invented' the Bible was advanced in the movie "The Da Vinci Code", perhaps that's were all you guys get your flawed history from.
The Council of Nicaea did not attend to the issue of the canon of Scripture at all - it dealt with Arian controversy and declared the deity of Jesus to remain as the orthodox Christian view. It wasn't until The Council of Carthage, not quit 100 years later, that the issue of the canon was dealt with . . . and they didn't 'invent' what the canon was or should be - they 'officially' substantiated what the Christian church had long held to be the Bible in response to false teachers seeking to remove and insert books that were never counted as Scripture.
Again, try to follow the way this would reasonably work; if people on HubPages more and more began using the word "bullshit" and more and more some began to complain about it, so that HubPages decided to have a big meeting to address the matter, and they determined that the word "bullshit" is sometimes the only word that can properly express what it's intended to express and so they issue a formal notice that using the word "bullshit" is permissible on HubPages, would you read their formal notice and think HubPages just invented a new word and was now directing everyone to use it?
Actually, I've never understood why you guys so commonly get it wrong about the Bible and The Council of Nicaea - even if you're going to misread history and conclude that these councils manufactured ideas rather than 'officially' recognizing the truth of ideas already held, The Council of Carthage which actually set forth the canon of Scripture adds nearly 100 years from the time the texts were written to the official announcement of the canon . . . I would thin that extra 100 year distance would appeal to you guys - but, you have to do honest, thorough, real investigation rather than merely read the popular slander of someone else's flawed research.
I honestly don't mean to sound snotty, but it's not at all difficult to discover what these councils gave their attention to, and so many of you guys so regularly assert that The Council of Nicaea invented the Bible and that's just so observably not the case - seriously, look it up (not on your favorite 'down with the Bible' website, but in actual history books), The Council of Nicaea, The Council of Carthage, the canon of Scripture, etc . . .I'll end my part in this with a we agree to disagree. My goal is not to try persuade you from your faith. If that seemed like my. Intention to you I apologize. I only want to gather knowledge i dont have from people in the never ending quest to form my own opinion. However, I still don't know where you get your facts on Constantine and what Nicea was, as I am using college databases for mine. I will say since nobody I know was alive and present there that's why I am trying to keep an open mind. I appreciate your responses as they are well thought out and presented. My only gripe was being generalized into a category of people. But I don't feel like you were using it detrimental towards me, you've probably just been through this discussion a lot. Lol
Thank you for discussing your take on slavery in the bible. I enjoyed reading your take on them.
Now I must leave these religous forums before my head explodes.I appreciate your manner and approach - and I understand your interest for references . . . the trouble is, I'm nearly 60 years old, I began studying the Bible and history and theology when I was about 17, I can't (and I don't feel like digging around too much) recall the specific texts I've investigated that evidence any particular idea. I know that Muddy Waters was instrumental in the development of the Delta Blues becoming the source of electric Chicago Blues. I know that Carmine Infantino penciled and Murphy Anderson inked some of the best looking comic books of the 60s. I know the George Washington and Lafayette had a near father/son relationship and that Lafayette named his son George Washington Lafayette . . . but I couldn't tell you when and where I learned any of that stuff.
Also, the things I've shared here about church history, etc, are not (to me) that specialized of research, it's not obscure stuff - the standard history texts will tell you that it was The Council of Carthage not The Council of Nicaea that attended to the issue of the canon of Scripture. Try Schaff or Edersheim or Warfield.
I prefer to use the Early Church canon of scriptures, which flowed through to those councils mentioned. The Early Church did not dispute that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the disciple John, son of Zebedee) wrote the gospels and neither did they dispute Pauls writings. The fact we have copies of copies (not rewrites containing different information but the same information which is what a copy actually is) shows the reliability and acceptance of all these scriptures which today comprise the New Testament. The veracity of these scriptures could not be refused by the Carthage council and were in essence, unstoppable.
The fact that apocrypha was added by the Catholic church is understandable as they used these books to compile their doctrines which as time has shown are conflicting with the Early Church doctrines and beliefs of the first century church which is why the protestant church booted them out - to loosely sum that scenario up.
The OT canon has never been in dispute, even Christ himself quoted often and in a parable "they have Moses and the prophets and if they will not beleive them, they will not believe even if visited by a dead relative".
If you would like to address slavery in the bible as gods truth I'm open for that.
I'm always open to a debate on talking snakes too.People became slaves for the following reasons:
1) poverty, the inability to sustain oneself and family. A
person could sell the right to his labor in return for provision
of sustenance for himself and family. (lev 25:39, 47) As i have
said before this is quite like being hired as a maid or butler
or groundskeeper, etc because a bill is being paid therefore
equal to some sort of a wage.
Exorbitant interest rates on loans, forbidden under the
statutes regulating usury, (God aware of some wanting to profit
by interest rates regulated interest rates) demanded that people
become slaves to resolve insolvency. Some of Davids followers we
defaulting debtors who had fled their creditors (1 sam 22:2)
2) Restitution for theft. Restitution by law required the
return of double the amount stolen. (God decided that if a
person steal and be caught they should pay double the amount) If
the thief were unable to comply he was sold and his work made
restitution. (ex 22:1-4) That'll teach him
3) Birth. Children of hebrew slaves became slaves by birth (ex
2:14) although this situation would not have been permanent
except that the slave had chosen to become a permanent slave.
(ex: 21:6; Deu 15:17). God instilled a fair treatment policy
toward slaves paying off debts while living their lives with the
blessings of family.
Children of a defaulting debtor could be sold to pay the debt or
where claimed along with their father as slaves till the next
year of jubilee (ex:21:7; Lev 25:39-41, 47, 54; 2 kings 4:1; Neh
5:5; Isa 50:1)
4)Abduction. Josephs brother essentially stole him and sold him
as a slave.(Gen 37:27,28) To reduce a kidnapped person to
slavery was punishable by death (ex 21:16; Deu 24:7), showing
God recognition of this possibility and fervent distaste toward
such action.
there were limits to slave service under the Mosaic law. Besides
freedom granted in the jubilee year - God decreed that all
slaves were set free regardless of any issue, this was done so
that the person in slavery did not lose inherited family land
and that continuity would prevail along family lineages - a
relative may pay the price owing or redeem the slave (lev 25:48
-49) If not redeemed, a person would receive freedom after six
years service together with gifts (ex 21:2). A mans wife and
children were freed with him. (ex 21:3).
In his seventh year, an Israelite servant could choose to
become a permanent slave instead of accepting freedom. ( ex
21:6; Deu 15:17) Again, under Gods laws slaves were treated
fairly and because of hard times, whatever reason, could opt
for a permanent position.
Protection was provided for the slave in the Mosaic law. Loss of
an eye or a tooth entitled the slave to freedom (ex 21:6,7;Lev
24:22)
During NT times, roman society was dependent upon slavery and
held a large number of the population. Jesus never criticized
the institution of slavery. Many slaves at that time were well-
educated men who had been captured or had fallen upon lean
days; capable of managing large estates and business affairs
(matt 25: 14-23) Unlike classical Greece or imperial Rome, the
economy of Israel never became dependent upon slave labor. The
benevolent requirements (instituted by God) prevented profitable
large-scale dealing in slaves.It sure is funny when believers try to justify slavery in their holy books.
Sad, but funny.whats sadder is when people deliberately remain ignorant of what is going on and they just type words because their fingers work and it doesn't even matter if their brain is on pause. I hope you find something worthwhile within yourself to cause you to up your game and maybe someday you will actually post something that benefits the discussion instead of just peeing around the place and then patting yourself on the back for being an intelligent person.
have a nice day
- Deborah Sextonposted 12 years ago0
First of all He was never called Jesus he was Yahshua so as to come in the name of God. Jesus is a Latin name pronounced Hey-sous.
In Hebrew, names, titles, and life purposes were the same. He was born Immanuel and later went in God’s name Yahshua
God told Ahaz about Immanuel
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.
In Matthew 1
Joseph had a dream and an Angel appeared and told him to name him Yahshua *yes your Bible says Jesus but the angel did not Latin (a roman language) to Joseph)
Immanuel is a Hebrew name and so is Yahshua.
In verses 22-23 it explains it was done because of the prophecy of Ahaz that he would be born and his name would be called Emmanuel.
Of course Joseph didn’t name him, Mary did.
Immanuel and Yahshua were his namesyes but we english people do not speak those languages. This is why translations occurred. yahshuah is speculative because the vowels might be wrong, same with yahweh. ywhw is unpronounceable, so vowel points were added as the masoretics thought necessary. Jesus is english for yahshua. It used to be Iesus, the I at that time having a J sound as in jump. The letter J:
J
the letter is a late modification of Roman -i-, originally a scribal creation in continental M.L. to distinguish small -i- in cursive writing from the strokes of other letters, especially in the final positions of words. But in Eng., -y- was used for this, and -j- was introduced c.1600-1640 to take up
the consonantal sound that had evolved from -i- since L.L. times. This usage first was attested in Sp., where it was in place before 1600. Eng. dictionaries continued to lump together words beginning in -i- and -j- until 19c._________
This English girl does speak those languages. Names are not translated, just words.
There is no such Yahweh.
The YHVH is said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, not Jehovah, not Yahweh.
The Yod was taken from Hebrew not the English Y.
No the vowels could not have been any vowel. I know you've read that but it's untrue
He3brews letters aren't just letters, they are words too and what letters placed where gives much info about what it's saying
glad you saw the funny side of that, thought i would land myself in hot water for that
- Virgil Newsomeposted 12 years ago0
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
_______
Is this suppose to say he did away with the law?Make of it what you want, I just posted the scripture. But since you asked about it, why not explain it?
Its pretty obvious the Mosaic law is done away with.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Does anyone think Horus gets mad at Jesus for stealing his entire story?
I'd like korky or brotheryochanan to google Horus and give me a real response to that.Last I heard it was in Mass. It's like a 4 week trip from where I live.
I will never open a link for a scientific or historical argument if it does not end in edu.
Don't try to link propaganda nonsense as evidence.
Sigh.
You might as well link Wikipedia pages...
I gather you didn't know about Horus lol.
The bane of fundamentalism.
Well, that and dinosaurs.Laugh out loud! Ignorance is bliss. Anyone with such stupid nonsense as Jesus stealing Horus life?????you have to wonder. I am guessing your not the type to rely on ignorance. You already have read the link.
actually I see little comparison between the two at all.
First i would like to make a point of the 10 plagues against Egypt at the time of Yahwehs bringing His people out of that slavery.
Exodus 10:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.
Exodus 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:
Horus was the sun, moon and stars god, but here we see that this decree of God mops up the floor with Horus as with the other gods that Egypt worshiped. Every plague that God caused to happen was against a main god of Egypt.
Of course mankind, at that time worshiped what they saw. This is the way the human mind works - mans imagination conjures up all sorts of things, in this case theories, but we see that in the bible, a recollection of Hebraic/jewish history, God defeated important Egyptian gods and persuasively showed they were nothing more than made up imagery.
There is no virgin birth and no resurrection that equal the Christian perspective.
Too me, this horus superstition carries no weight at all and i do not see it as a predecessor to Christianity but as an evil imagination that took god a millennia to eradicate from His people.
If we look to the book of Leviticus we see that God goes to great lengths to set up and create a completely different set of standards, way of life and process of worship for His people that are also, completely different from every other humanistic god worship of the nations around during that time.
The idea of sUn and sOn being connected is ludicrous! Of course the egyptians were going to worship the sUn, its what they saw and i dare say the amount of sunshine and quality of that sunshine was definitely awe inspiring ( I see the sun in the summer and it still wows me ) but sOn in Hebrew/Jewish culture was important for entirely different reasons, having to do with family values and definitely is not linked with vegetative cycles.
So since horus does not exist the answer to the question is NO.
Can neither of you guys even be bothered putting up an avatar? One here 5 days, the other 2 weeks. Why am I even bothering?
Sorry, ive been lazy. I like yours though.
I'll get one tomorrow.
brotheryochanan wrote:
Its pretty obvious the Mosaic law is done away with.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
============================================================
me
And this is what Daniel 8th chapter is all about!
" which my covenant they brake"
NIT the Lord was govong them a warning that they had 70 weeks to bring their actions back inot harmony with the origional covenant .. Or Else they shall come to the end of THEIR Days.
Not only that; but, they are going to kill the Messiah in 62 weeks making it imposible to avert my declaration thar THEY broke our covenant, and all of Gods promises were fulfilled anyway, at least till there wasn't hebrew Nation any longer in which to have a covenant with! They shall be scattered to the ends of the earth or a time, times and an half.
During the first half of the 1800s, Millions of Hebrew peoples migrated hack to the promised land bring an end to this prophesy, And 50 t0 1000 years Israel oficially became a Nation again.
Would this not be when God makes another covenant with the Hebrew People?
We keep forgetting; God can make as many diferent covenants with as many diferent peoples as he chooses.
We are not talking about them other covenants; we are talking about those which are written in the bible, To those Hebrew people that were alive under that covenant.
That Nation came to the end of their days when they were scattered to the four winds and the Roman Empire attempted to erase all memory of them, ever having existing, off the face of the earth.
So, of course we are under a new covenant.... too bad, no one knows exactly what "all" the terms are?
A lot of people say that they/we do, but do we?
This verse does not say anything about the Mosaic law.
This speaks of the covenant with Abraham, does it not? All of the Mosaic law came after the covenant was entered into; did it not? two different things.
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.All the people must go to hell except only those who follows last messenger faithfully.
I believed that Jesus was a prostitute and I still worshipped him the same!
Oh! My Brother you are in dark now plz wake up The Prophet Jesus is the second last messenger, the Last messenger from GOD is MUHAMMAD. Accept his region as early as possible and I share with you my good news is I have accept ISLAM.
Plz be fast.Whoa...maybe I should've asked why do Christians and Muslims believe everyone else is wrong?
Related Discussions
- 179
Why do many Christians believe God called Trump but not Obama?
by Catherine Mostly 6 years ago
This is a really good question for Christians... Why was Obama erroneously-labeled the anti-christ; while a man like Trump is considered to be 'called' and appointed by God?Ps 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he...
- 16
I'M SO RIGHT, YOU'RE SO WRONG
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
Some Christians( the more extreme, conservative, and/or fundamentalistic kind) steadfastly contend that their belief is the only correct one. They also maintain that those who are not Christians are in the wrong and need to be righted so to speak. What makes some Christians believe that...
- 359
Why do so many Christians believe the bible to justifies homophobia?
by Justin Earick 11 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex, swearing). Paul was talking about vastly different subjects (lust, guilt, boy...
- 79
Why do Christians believe Jesus is God...
by CONSCIOUSNINJA 7 years ago
...when Jesus clearly said 'My Father is Greater than I' in John 14:28?Nothing can be greater than God, so by Jesus' own words, we can deduce that Jesus did not profess to be God, because he professes that there is a power Greater than him (Jesus). Why then do many Christians firmly believe that...
- 22
Calling all Atheists, Christians, and everyone in between. Will everybody go to
by M. Victor Kilgore 8 years ago
Calling all Atheists, Christians, and everyone in between. Will everybody go to Heaven?In a world of extreme religious inclusiveness, do you believe in an exclusive God and His Heaven? Why?
- 59
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?
by Pauline C Stark 6 years ago
Why Do Religious People Get So Angry At Atheists?When it comes to Atheism, most religious people get angry and even combative when it comes to this subject. I wonder why, especially in this day and age, one would feel anger towards another human being with a different perception/outlook/belief....