koan wrote: why less asians?
Cos i'm a racist pig!!! no, only jokin, i want a white, hard-workin britian, it's our country an i want it to stay that way. I'm fed up of groups of asians causin trouble, i mean i know white lads do it aswell, but their our white lads, we can deal with them. I'm fed up of walking around on tip-toes because of being called a racist, their the racist ones, "u can't be racist if you a majority" what's that about, bloody hell. :-5
If we kicked the lot of them out then i un-empolyment rates will come down, crime will decrease, it won't be as hard for first time house buyers, a lot of our country's problems would be reduced.
I don't mind the ones that work, my best friend is asian, and agrees with me 100%, when they come over, in 6 months time, they should be checked on, and if they are not working, or have been in trouble with the police, then they should be sent back. Our country is being raped by immergrants. don't laugh, it's not funny, it's horriable.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Bones87 wrote: Cos i'm a racist pig!!! no, only jokin, i want a white, hard-workin britian, it's our country an i want it to stay that way. I'm fed up of groups of asians causin trouble, i mean i know white lads do it aswell, but their our white lads, we can deal with them. I'm fed up of walking around on tip-toes because of being called a racist, their the racist ones, "u can't be racist if you a majority" what's that about, bloody hell. :-5
If we kicked the lot of them out then i un-empolyment rates will come down, crime will decrease, it won't be as hard for first time house buyers, a lot of our country's problems would be reduced.
I don't mind the ones that work, my best friend is asian, and agrees with me 100%, when they come over, in 6 months time, they should be checked on, and if they are not working, or have been in trouble with the police, then they should be sent back. Our country is being raped by immergrants. don't laugh, it's not funny, it's horriable.Take it you'll be voting Tory then?
If we kicked the lot of them out then i un-empolyment rates will come down, crime will decrease, it won't be as hard for first time house buyers, a lot of our country's problems would be reduced.
I don't mind the ones that work, my best friend is asian, and agrees with me 100%, when they come over, in 6 months time, they should be checked on, and if they are not working, or have been in trouble with the police, then they should be sent back. Our country is being raped by immergrants. don't laugh, it's not funny, it's horriable.Take it you'll be voting Tory then?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Bones87 wrote: Cos i'm a racist pig!!! no, only jokin, i want a white, hard-workin britian, it's our country an i want it to stay that way. I'm fed up of groups of asians causin trouble, i mean i know white lads do it aswell, but their our white lads, we can deal with them. I'm fed up of walking around on tip-toes because of being called a racist, their the racist ones, "u can't be racist if you a majority" what's that about, bloody hell. :-5
If we kicked the lot of them out then i un-empolyment rates will come down, crime will decrease, it won't be as hard for first time house buyers, a lot of our country's problems would be reduced.
I don't mind the ones that work, my best friend is asian, and agrees with me 100%, when they come over, in 6 months time, they should be checked on, and if they are not working, or have been in trouble with the police, then they should be sent back. Our country is being raped by immergrants. don't laugh, it's not funny, it's horriable.oh, you're definitely a racist. you do your country more harm than the immigrants or asians. racism is precisely what you're saying - 'xyz people because of their last name or their appearance are zyx in behavioral qualities'. well bollocks. pull your head from your backside. you're a racist.
what this has to do with jesus returning i will never understand, but that's probably because i don't think like a racist.
If we kicked the lot of them out then i un-empolyment rates will come down, crime will decrease, it won't be as hard for first time house buyers, a lot of our country's problems would be reduced.
I don't mind the ones that work, my best friend is asian, and agrees with me 100%, when they come over, in 6 months time, they should be checked on, and if they are not working, or have been in trouble with the police, then they should be sent back. Our country is being raped by immergrants. don't laugh, it's not funny, it's horriable.oh, you're definitely a racist. you do your country more harm than the immigrants or asians. racism is precisely what you're saying - 'xyz people because of their last name or their appearance are zyx in behavioral qualities'. well bollocks. pull your head from your backside. you're a racist.
what this has to do with jesus returning i will never understand, but that's probably because i don't think like a racist.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ruewen :-6
Your are more then welcome to refute any statements I make. I would say that for all of the statements I hve made I havd academic and scholarly research to back them up. Could I be wrong? Sure. I would be wrong if the scholarly researchers are wrong. I have no problem if one proves that I am wrong on a point. I have also been formally trained in both Greek and Hebrew translation and interpretation and have had much training in other aspects as well.
My feeling is that you are making statements that you have not backed up with anything except your own thinking. Some scholarly backup would be of help.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Your are more then welcome to refute any statements I make. I would say that for all of the statements I hve made I havd academic and scholarly research to back them up. Could I be wrong? Sure. I would be wrong if the scholarly researchers are wrong. I have no problem if one proves that I am wrong on a point. I have also been formally trained in both Greek and Hebrew translation and interpretation and have had much training in other aspects as well.
My feeling is that you are making statements that you have not backed up with anything except your own thinking. Some scholarly backup would be of help.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
gmc wrote: If Jesus was here he wouldn't get a word in edgeways because of all the people telling him he was wrong and they were right and that he didn't understand the bible.As I understand Scripture, Jesus is coming the second time in the sky with power and glory. Then all who didn’t like Jesus, when they see Him coming, will hide in caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!†(Revelation 6:15,16) Those who loved Him will say, “Look! This is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.†(Isaiah 25:9)
I think a lot of the saints (that means saved people- believers) will have had different church backgrounds and maybe very different opinions on some points of doctrine- but when we see Jesus coming for us, He will be all that matters. We’ll be too busy praising Him and crying out in emotional excitement to be arguing over anything. If we had more a sense of His presence now, there would be less argument now.
I think a lot of the saints (that means saved people- believers) will have had different church backgrounds and maybe very different opinions on some points of doctrine- but when we see Jesus coming for us, He will be all that matters. We’ll be too busy praising Him and crying out in emotional excitement to be arguing over anything. If we had more a sense of His presence now, there would be less argument now.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ruewen :-6
You are the one who said you wanted to challenge me so go for it. All I ask for is a reference that can be checked out. When we look into the statement and the author then we know whether or not there is much validity there.
Generally I accept scholars whos work is peer reviewed and supported by other scholars within the scholarly circle. Somthing credited to Homer Simpson might be funny but would lack any credibility.
Shalom
Ted :-6
You are the one who said you wanted to challenge me so go for it. All I ask for is a reference that can be checked out. When we look into the statement and the author then we know whether or not there is much validity there.
Generally I accept scholars whos work is peer reviewed and supported by other scholars within the scholarly circle. Somthing credited to Homer Simpson might be funny but would lack any credibility.
Shalom
Ted :-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ruewen
You made a few posts that indicated that you have researched, mostly, the debunking of Christianity. I have read and heard all of your statements before. You speak as if it is already proven to be a conspiracy yet get upset when Ted questions your 'facts' with his research.
I went back through all the posts and he is correct. He has given sources for his information and you have not. To speak as if he is blowing smoke up our arses by using terms like "scholarly" is inaccurate and an insult to the time he took to respond to your statements. If Ted being scholarly upsets you then you should review your own research and try to figure out why it is not standing up to his. First of all tell us what your sources are. Maybe that is the problem?
You said you are not interested in scholarly debate yet you have quoted passages from the bible and refered to historical information on the bible. You put yourself in an arena you do not seem prepared to defend yourself in. Now you should learn to back out GRACEFULLY. Or crack open those books and start debating. I can hardly call what you have done so far a legitimate debate.
You made a few posts that indicated that you have researched, mostly, the debunking of Christianity. I have read and heard all of your statements before. You speak as if it is already proven to be a conspiracy yet get upset when Ted questions your 'facts' with his research.
I went back through all the posts and he is correct. He has given sources for his information and you have not. To speak as if he is blowing smoke up our arses by using terms like "scholarly" is inaccurate and an insult to the time he took to respond to your statements. If Ted being scholarly upsets you then you should review your own research and try to figure out why it is not standing up to his. First of all tell us what your sources are. Maybe that is the problem?
You said you are not interested in scholarly debate yet you have quoted passages from the bible and refered to historical information on the bible. You put yourself in an arena you do not seem prepared to defend yourself in. Now you should learn to back out GRACEFULLY. Or crack open those books and start debating. I can hardly call what you have done so far a legitimate debate.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ruewen :-6
You are certainly in error about one point. I am not a great scholar. I have never even hinted at being a scholar. However, I know where to go when I need some information. I am but a humble student and servant of my Lord.
Anyway I wish you peace.
Shalom
Ted :-6
You are certainly in error about one point. I am not a great scholar. I have never even hinted at being a scholar. However, I know where to go when I need some information. I am but a humble student and servant of my Lord.
Anyway I wish you peace.
Shalom
Ted :-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Koan :-6
Thanks. May peace be with you.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Thanks. May peace be with you.
Shalom
Ted :-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ruewen :-6
I honestly don't know what you are rambling on about. You are saying things to me that over the weeks I have spoken against as much as you. You are clearly angry with me and you rant on about things that are not even part of my Christian faith. You are so busy being anti-?? something or other that you have no time to listen and go through things point by point. you make statements, that as far as I am concerned, are meaningless since you offer no authority or reason on which to base them.
I'm sorry but you want debate but prattle on. I wish you absolutely no ill will. I wish only peace for you.
I do not know how to respond to the above post because it only wants confrontation and argument and not debate.
Shalom
Ted :-3
I honestly don't know what you are rambling on about. You are saying things to me that over the weeks I have spoken against as much as you. You are clearly angry with me and you rant on about things that are not even part of my Christian faith. You are so busy being anti-?? something or other that you have no time to listen and go through things point by point. you make statements, that as far as I am concerned, are meaningless since you offer no authority or reason on which to base them.
I'm sorry but you want debate but prattle on. I wish you absolutely no ill will. I wish only peace for you.
I do not know how to respond to the above post because it only wants confrontation and argument and not debate.
Shalom
Ted :-3
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
What IS your point, Ruewen?
Indeed, had it not been for the fortuitous discovery of all those documents at Nag Hammadi in 1946, the modern world might have never known of the Gnostic viewpoint.
Wrong. Gnosticism has been alive and well since it's beginning even if more underground before as many other religions chose to be.
From a strictly practical (dare I say "evidentiary") point of view, there are several things that lend doubt to the accuracy of the story of Jesus as related in the four "authorized" Gospels. First, the earliest of the Gospels ("Mark") dates at earliest to around 90 A.D, some two to three generations after Jesus' death. The earliest "authorized" works in the New Testament are the books and letters of Paul, written in the years immediately following the Crucifixion. Intriguingly, Paul never once mentions the physical Crucifixion or Resurrection. Nor does Jesus' disciple, Thomas, in his suppressed work "The Gospel of Thomas." Odd that the two folks nearest in time to the central event described in the later Gospels never mention it.
That an event is not described in every book in the bible does not provide evidence that it didn't happen. Admittedly it is curious but proves nothing and is an extremely weak arguement.
Im not out to send anyone into a "spiritual depression" with facts
I'm afraid you have to reveal your 'facts' to have an actual debate.
Moreover, even the early Church was far from unanimous in its central tenet that Jesus was divine from birth.
That in turn led to one of the enduring conundrums of Christianity--the concept of the Holy Trinity.
You could feasibly argue that the divinity of Christ from birth and the concept of the Holy Trinity are fabrications of the Church but that does not debunk the entire religion, just those concepts (if you succeed in winning the arguement).
thats right tela he encouraged sex and rape!
You seem to be implying that the God of the OT is immoral. That's a legitimate arguement.
Translations change the meaning of things as well. Heck even changing the punctuation in each sentence can dramatically change the meaning, as we hear time and again if you ever watch televangelists do their thing. In Greece, there are many words to express the different kinds of love for example, yet translate that to English and there is only one.. Love. So instantly you lose meaning in the translations.
So, in the end what you have is a bunch of short stories which are probably translated to better suit the translator's belief of what it should say.
Now you just provided the arguement against yourself.
Other men and women had ideas of their own and started their own churches, too. Today there are hundreds (if not thousands) of different denominations.
Your numbers were way off here. Your credibility comes to question because you did not acknowledge the correction. Ted's post #96 addresses most of what you have said with corrections to your 'facts'.
My POINT was. God doesn’t need you talking for him and translating his “good†book to the masses! It’s a personal experience for all of us
Ahhh. Finally we know your point. But if this was your point why did you attempt to translate the 'good' book as well? And get so angry when people disagreed?
I find religion fascinating on a whole and I’m not afraid to research. I stand behind all the statements I make. ALL OF US are speculating Ted don’t get silly on me now!
I don't think it is accurate to say that research and scholarly study is pure speculation. Some of those statement you insisted on 'standing behind' were in fact wrong. ie) # of denominations, dating of text.
Yet I do wonder where you have spent that time on “research†because a lot of what I have mentioned can easily be checked out with a simple google search.
This seems to imply that your information is coming from google searches. Doesn't sound as reliable as the books and studies Ted quoted. Again you lose credibility.
Fundementally and this is the thing which is the differing between me and you. Faith isn't knowledge. I will use the standard definition of Knowledge which is 'Justified True Belief' It must be a belief you have and it be true to you and it must be able to be justified in some light, a measuring stick or backed up empirical evidence etc.
Your faith in your google searches hardly compares to Ted's knowledge of religious scholarly works. I think you mislabeled.
The rest of your last post made almost no sense to me so I will leave it here.
Do you understand? You have made no solid point, refused to admit your errors and are harassing Ted because he not only has more information than you, he writes his arguements better. Your attempt to discredit him as being a victim of faith and therefore any knowledge he has makes him hypocritical is outright absurd. And a really low shot tactic to win a debate you are obviously not prepared to handle.
Indeed, had it not been for the fortuitous discovery of all those documents at Nag Hammadi in 1946, the modern world might have never known of the Gnostic viewpoint.
Wrong. Gnosticism has been alive and well since it's beginning even if more underground before as many other religions chose to be.
From a strictly practical (dare I say "evidentiary") point of view, there are several things that lend doubt to the accuracy of the story of Jesus as related in the four "authorized" Gospels. First, the earliest of the Gospels ("Mark") dates at earliest to around 90 A.D, some two to three generations after Jesus' death. The earliest "authorized" works in the New Testament are the books and letters of Paul, written in the years immediately following the Crucifixion. Intriguingly, Paul never once mentions the physical Crucifixion or Resurrection. Nor does Jesus' disciple, Thomas, in his suppressed work "The Gospel of Thomas." Odd that the two folks nearest in time to the central event described in the later Gospels never mention it.
That an event is not described in every book in the bible does not provide evidence that it didn't happen. Admittedly it is curious but proves nothing and is an extremely weak arguement.
Im not out to send anyone into a "spiritual depression" with facts
I'm afraid you have to reveal your 'facts' to have an actual debate.
Moreover, even the early Church was far from unanimous in its central tenet that Jesus was divine from birth.
That in turn led to one of the enduring conundrums of Christianity--the concept of the Holy Trinity.
You could feasibly argue that the divinity of Christ from birth and the concept of the Holy Trinity are fabrications of the Church but that does not debunk the entire religion, just those concepts (if you succeed in winning the arguement).
thats right tela he encouraged sex and rape!
You seem to be implying that the God of the OT is immoral. That's a legitimate arguement.
Translations change the meaning of things as well. Heck even changing the punctuation in each sentence can dramatically change the meaning, as we hear time and again if you ever watch televangelists do their thing. In Greece, there are many words to express the different kinds of love for example, yet translate that to English and there is only one.. Love. So instantly you lose meaning in the translations.
So, in the end what you have is a bunch of short stories which are probably translated to better suit the translator's belief of what it should say.
Now you just provided the arguement against yourself.
Other men and women had ideas of their own and started their own churches, too. Today there are hundreds (if not thousands) of different denominations.
Your numbers were way off here. Your credibility comes to question because you did not acknowledge the correction. Ted's post #96 addresses most of what you have said with corrections to your 'facts'.
My POINT was. God doesn’t need you talking for him and translating his “good†book to the masses! It’s a personal experience for all of us
Ahhh. Finally we know your point. But if this was your point why did you attempt to translate the 'good' book as well? And get so angry when people disagreed?
I find religion fascinating on a whole and I’m not afraid to research. I stand behind all the statements I make. ALL OF US are speculating Ted don’t get silly on me now!
I don't think it is accurate to say that research and scholarly study is pure speculation. Some of those statement you insisted on 'standing behind' were in fact wrong. ie) # of denominations, dating of text.
Yet I do wonder where you have spent that time on “research†because a lot of what I have mentioned can easily be checked out with a simple google search.
This seems to imply that your information is coming from google searches. Doesn't sound as reliable as the books and studies Ted quoted. Again you lose credibility.
Fundementally and this is the thing which is the differing between me and you. Faith isn't knowledge. I will use the standard definition of Knowledge which is 'Justified True Belief' It must be a belief you have and it be true to you and it must be able to be justified in some light, a measuring stick or backed up empirical evidence etc.
Your faith in your google searches hardly compares to Ted's knowledge of religious scholarly works. I think you mislabeled.
The rest of your last post made almost no sense to me so I will leave it here.
Do you understand? You have made no solid point, refused to admit your errors and are harassing Ted because he not only has more information than you, he writes his arguements better. Your attempt to discredit him as being a victim of faith and therefore any knowledge he has makes him hypocritical is outright absurd. And a really low shot tactic to win a debate you are obviously not prepared to handle.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan :-6
Thanks. I don't really have the desire to defend myself against her as I have no need to. I could give a list of hundreds of scholars or the titles of hundreds of books which I have in my library. I could also give her the names of scholars I personally know but would only get derisive remarks about scholarship.
There is a decided lack of any attempt to be open and honest, at least as far as I can see, and that is too bad because that is one of the ways in which we learn from each other. We need open and honest exchanges and disagreements can happen with cordiallity.
Once again thanks. It is appreciated.
I mean Ruewen no ill will but only wish peace for her.
Shalom
Ted
Thanks. I don't really have the desire to defend myself against her as I have no need to. I could give a list of hundreds of scholars or the titles of hundreds of books which I have in my library. I could also give her the names of scholars I personally know but would only get derisive remarks about scholarship.
There is a decided lack of any attempt to be open and honest, at least as far as I can see, and that is too bad because that is one of the ways in which we learn from each other. We need open and honest exchanges and disagreements can happen with cordiallity.
Once again thanks. It is appreciated.
I mean Ruewen no ill will but only wish peace for her.
Shalom
Ted
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
I am not a very religious person and as such should probably keep my mouth shut on this subject but I won't. I have no doubt the man Jesus was here and was a good man. I do have a problem with him being the son of God and Mary - I think he was the son of Joseph and Mary. The idea of immaculate conception goes against my studies in biology. Are you asking this as a spiritual question or an historical question?
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
mvallevee :-6
Not a bad assessment. Actually the Birth stories are midrashic and use a great deal of metaphor. They are not historical nor were they meant to be historical. Yes they are historical in that Yeshua of Nazareth was born to Mary and Joseph. This is not to deny any involvement of Divinity.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Not a bad assessment. Actually the Birth stories are midrashic and use a great deal of metaphor. They are not historical nor were they meant to be historical. Yes they are historical in that Yeshua of Nazareth was born to Mary and Joseph. This is not to deny any involvement of Divinity.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote: You seem to be implying that the God of the OT is immoral. That's a legitimate arguement.Koan, you’re a sweetie, and I don’t wish to argue with you, but I want to comment on this that there is a different way of looking at God’s actions in the Old Testament. First of all, there are many verses I’d rather not quote right now, that express that Jesus is Lord, and that He always has been Lord, and so, people who say that Jesus was so nice in the New Testament and God was so mean and cruel in the Old Testament fail to recognize that the acts of the Lord in the Old Testament were done by Jesus. He is God. His character and personality never change.
Secondly, God always had the right to discipline the nations. Scripture teaches that when the sins of a nation reach a critical point, God removes His protection from that nation, and calamity results. And God has always been impartial. Even Israel, the nation He chose to carry His oracles (almost all of the Bible was written by Israelites), the nation He chose to produce the family tree of the world’s Savior (almost all of Jesus’ earthly ancestors were Israelites)..even Israel would suffer for filling her cup of sin. Israel may have suffered even more than most, because God had a covenant with Israel that as long as Israel kept God’s law, God would protect Israel and they would win all their battles, but if they disobeyed, He would remove His protection, and they would lose all their battles. Deuteronomy 28 tells about the covenant blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience.
Deuteronomy 28:1 If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.
Deuteronomy 28:7 The LORD will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven.
Deuteronomy 28:15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
Deuteronomy 28:25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth.
One specific example was the reign of King Ahaz. Because of earlier sins, Israel had been divided into a northern kingdom called Israel (later called Samaria after their capital city) and a southern kingdom called Judah, whose capital was Jerusalem. God sometimes used one kingdom to punish the other. They never seemed to learn their lesson. When King Ahaz led the people of Judah into sin, God allowed Israel to gain victory over Judah.
2 Chronicles 28:1
Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD.
2 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and also made cast idols for worshiping the Baals.
3 He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his sons in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
4 He offered sacrifices and burned incense at the high places, on the hilltops and under every spreading tree.
5 Therefore the LORD his God handed him over to the king of Aram. The Arameans defeated him and took many of his people as prisoners and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hands of the king of Israel, who inflicted heavy casualties on him.
6 In one day Pekah son of Remaliah killed a hundred and twenty thousand soldiers in Judah--because Judah had forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers.
God had allowed Egypt, Aram, Assyria and Babylon to punish Judah also. Now, those were pagan nations that were sinful in God’s sight, but this did not stop God from using them to discipline His own people when they disobeyed. But they overdid it. At that point, God (it says “the Lord,†and that’s Jesus) decided Judah had been punished more than enough, and He then allowed the other nations to suffer the penalty for their wrongdoing, which had built up to the critical point.
Zechariah 1:13
So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me.
14 Then the angel who was speaking to me said, "Proclaim this word: This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion,
15 but I am very angry with the nations that feel secure. I was only a little angry, but they added to the calamity.'
In other words, God was only a little angry at Judah (where Jerusalem and Zion are) but the nations He brought to discipline Judah added to the calamity- they punished Judah more than God had intended.
2 Chronicles 28:9
But a prophet of the LORD named Oded was there, and he went out to meet the army when it returned to Samaria (Israel). He said to them, "Because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand. But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven.
10 And now you intend to make the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem your slaves. But aren't you also guilty of sins against the LORD your God?
If you look behind the scenes of all the war and bloodshed in the Old Testament, it all results from disobedience to God. On the surface, God accepts the responsibility for the outcomes of war because ultimately He decides who wins and who loses. But If you read the Bible accounts carefully, two points emerge: One, it generally isn’t God who is causing all the suffering, but He is permitting it. And two, there is always a righteous reason for what God allows to happen. (righteous- that is if you believe as I do that God is righteous)
I realize this is hard to swallow- but it really speaks about our faith. When we look at those accounts in the Bible (or even at current events, like 9-11) the question is, do we believe in God or not? Do we believe His actions really are righteous, or immoral? Do we see Him as a loving parent, disciplining His children for their own good, or as a cruel tyrant who delights to inflict pain on people? One can hardly expect that a faultfinding and critical attitude toward God or His actions can in any way be construed as a “saving faith.â€Â
I personally believe that there would be a lot more suffering and calamity on earth if not for God mercifully holding back the winds of strife. I feel that rather than stand in judgment of the Righteous One, we ought to be thankful to Him that He protects us as much as He does.
Psalm 34:7
The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him (“fear†meaning “reverenceâ€Â), and he delivers them.
8 Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.
Secondly, God always had the right to discipline the nations. Scripture teaches that when the sins of a nation reach a critical point, God removes His protection from that nation, and calamity results. And God has always been impartial. Even Israel, the nation He chose to carry His oracles (almost all of the Bible was written by Israelites), the nation He chose to produce the family tree of the world’s Savior (almost all of Jesus’ earthly ancestors were Israelites)..even Israel would suffer for filling her cup of sin. Israel may have suffered even more than most, because God had a covenant with Israel that as long as Israel kept God’s law, God would protect Israel and they would win all their battles, but if they disobeyed, He would remove His protection, and they would lose all their battles. Deuteronomy 28 tells about the covenant blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience.
Deuteronomy 28:1 If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.
Deuteronomy 28:7 The LORD will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven.
Deuteronomy 28:15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
Deuteronomy 28:25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth.
One specific example was the reign of King Ahaz. Because of earlier sins, Israel had been divided into a northern kingdom called Israel (later called Samaria after their capital city) and a southern kingdom called Judah, whose capital was Jerusalem. God sometimes used one kingdom to punish the other. They never seemed to learn their lesson. When King Ahaz led the people of Judah into sin, God allowed Israel to gain victory over Judah.
2 Chronicles 28:1
Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD.
2 He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and also made cast idols for worshiping the Baals.
3 He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his sons in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
4 He offered sacrifices and burned incense at the high places, on the hilltops and under every spreading tree.
5 Therefore the LORD his God handed him over to the king of Aram. The Arameans defeated him and took many of his people as prisoners and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hands of the king of Israel, who inflicted heavy casualties on him.
6 In one day Pekah son of Remaliah killed a hundred and twenty thousand soldiers in Judah--because Judah had forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers.
God had allowed Egypt, Aram, Assyria and Babylon to punish Judah also. Now, those were pagan nations that were sinful in God’s sight, but this did not stop God from using them to discipline His own people when they disobeyed. But they overdid it. At that point, God (it says “the Lord,†and that’s Jesus) decided Judah had been punished more than enough, and He then allowed the other nations to suffer the penalty for their wrongdoing, which had built up to the critical point.
Zechariah 1:13
So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me.
14 Then the angel who was speaking to me said, "Proclaim this word: This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion,
15 but I am very angry with the nations that feel secure. I was only a little angry, but they added to the calamity.'
In other words, God was only a little angry at Judah (where Jerusalem and Zion are) but the nations He brought to discipline Judah added to the calamity- they punished Judah more than God had intended.
2 Chronicles 28:9
But a prophet of the LORD named Oded was there, and he went out to meet the army when it returned to Samaria (Israel). He said to them, "Because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand. But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven.
10 And now you intend to make the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem your slaves. But aren't you also guilty of sins against the LORD your God?
If you look behind the scenes of all the war and bloodshed in the Old Testament, it all results from disobedience to God. On the surface, God accepts the responsibility for the outcomes of war because ultimately He decides who wins and who loses. But If you read the Bible accounts carefully, two points emerge: One, it generally isn’t God who is causing all the suffering, but He is permitting it. And two, there is always a righteous reason for what God allows to happen. (righteous- that is if you believe as I do that God is righteous)
I realize this is hard to swallow- but it really speaks about our faith. When we look at those accounts in the Bible (or even at current events, like 9-11) the question is, do we believe in God or not? Do we believe His actions really are righteous, or immoral? Do we see Him as a loving parent, disciplining His children for their own good, or as a cruel tyrant who delights to inflict pain on people? One can hardly expect that a faultfinding and critical attitude toward God or His actions can in any way be construed as a “saving faith.â€Â
I personally believe that there would be a lot more suffering and calamity on earth if not for God mercifully holding back the winds of strife. I feel that rather than stand in judgment of the Righteous One, we ought to be thankful to Him that He protects us as much as He does.
Psalm 34:7
The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him (“fear†meaning “reverenceâ€Â), and he delivers them.
8 Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
telaquapacky :-6
First of all I see a problem with your use of "Jesus". When Jesus was on earth he presented the very nature of the one true God. Comparing the life of Jesus with some of the attrocities of the OT and claiming that they are from God is an affront the the very message of Yeshua of Nazareth who would not even allow a sword to be raised in his own defense.
The God presented in Numbers 31 is not the God and Father of Yeshua of Nazareth. That was not from God.
Secondly when we claim that Jesus is God and him only do we worship, we are ignoring the Holy Trinity. It falls under the label of "Jesusolatry". Personally I am a Trinitarian Christian and we must be sure to praise the Trinity and not just Jesus.
The Holy Trinity is the Godhead not just Jesus who in fact said at one point that the Father was greater then he. God Almighty includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Shalom
TEd
:-6
First of all I see a problem with your use of "Jesus". When Jesus was on earth he presented the very nature of the one true God. Comparing the life of Jesus with some of the attrocities of the OT and claiming that they are from God is an affront the the very message of Yeshua of Nazareth who would not even allow a sword to be raised in his own defense.
The God presented in Numbers 31 is not the God and Father of Yeshua of Nazareth. That was not from God.
Secondly when we claim that Jesus is God and him only do we worship, we are ignoring the Holy Trinity. It falls under the label of "Jesusolatry". Personally I am a Trinitarian Christian and we must be sure to praise the Trinity and not just Jesus.
The Holy Trinity is the Godhead not just Jesus who in fact said at one point that the Father was greater then he. God Almighty includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Shalom
TEd
:-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ted wrote: telaquapacky :-6
First of all I see a problem with your use of "Jesus". When Jesus was on earth he presented the very nature of the one true God. Comparing the life of Jesus with some of the attrocities of the OT and claiming that they are from God is an affront the the very message of Yeshua of Nazareth who would not even allow a sword to be raised in his own defense.Jesus didn’t defend Himself because He came to die for the sins of mankind- many of which were the atrocities described in the OT. Bible language often gives the Lord the responsibility for that which He allows. When the sins of a nation reach a certain height, He removes His protection from them, and calamity results. Bible language says that the Lord “sent†the calamity only because the Bible writers recognized that God decides who wins and who loses in every war- but He is not generally the one who does the atrocities.
Ted wrote: The God presented in Numbers 31 is not the God and Father of Yeshua of Nazareth. That was not from God.Indeed it was from God, as were the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues in Egypt, the earth swallowing up Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the untimely deaths of a few people. There are times when in exception to the general rule I described above, God does step in and take decisive action. In the case of Numbers 31, verse 16 tells why. The Midianites were a threat to God’s plan of salvation because Balaam, a corrupted former prophet of God told the Midianites how to morally weaken and defeat the Israelites by severing their connection with God. God had chosen the Israelites to make salvation possible for you and I by carrying God’s oracles, and by being the society in which the family tree of the world’s Savior was born. Had God not taken decisive action, the game would have been over long ago. Neither you nor I would have been born, let alone had a chance at salvation.
Some situations call for drastic action. Consider what the world would be like if the Allied powers had not taken decisive action against Germany and Japan in WW II. To say God was immoral in any of those actions would be like saying the Allies were immoral in what we did to Germany and Japan in WW II. In reality, much more was at stake in Numbers 31.
Ted wrote: Secondly when we claim that Jesus is God and him only do we worship, we are ignoring the Holy Trinity. It falls under the label of "Jesusolatry". Personally I am a Trinitarian Christian and we must be sure to praise the Trinity and not just Jesus.
The Holy Trinity is the Godhead not just Jesus who in fact said at one point that the Father was greater then he. God Almighty includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.Relax, Ted. I’m a trinitarian just like you. I believe the Father is God. I believe the Son is God. I believe the Holy Spirit is God. Three persons, one God? One God, three manifestations? Actually, Scripture is ambiguous on the subject. To split hairs on it would be to go beyond what Scripture says. The precise, detailed nature of the Godhead is beyond our comprehension. Any extreme view that makes one member of the Godhead “God†to the exclusion of the other two is certainly wrong.
But worshipping Jesus worships the other two. Consider Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
First of all I see a problem with your use of "Jesus". When Jesus was on earth he presented the very nature of the one true God. Comparing the life of Jesus with some of the attrocities of the OT and claiming that they are from God is an affront the the very message of Yeshua of Nazareth who would not even allow a sword to be raised in his own defense.Jesus didn’t defend Himself because He came to die for the sins of mankind- many of which were the atrocities described in the OT. Bible language often gives the Lord the responsibility for that which He allows. When the sins of a nation reach a certain height, He removes His protection from them, and calamity results. Bible language says that the Lord “sent†the calamity only because the Bible writers recognized that God decides who wins and who loses in every war- but He is not generally the one who does the atrocities.
Ted wrote: The God presented in Numbers 31 is not the God and Father of Yeshua of Nazareth. That was not from God.Indeed it was from God, as were the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues in Egypt, the earth swallowing up Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the untimely deaths of a few people. There are times when in exception to the general rule I described above, God does step in and take decisive action. In the case of Numbers 31, verse 16 tells why. The Midianites were a threat to God’s plan of salvation because Balaam, a corrupted former prophet of God told the Midianites how to morally weaken and defeat the Israelites by severing their connection with God. God had chosen the Israelites to make salvation possible for you and I by carrying God’s oracles, and by being the society in which the family tree of the world’s Savior was born. Had God not taken decisive action, the game would have been over long ago. Neither you nor I would have been born, let alone had a chance at salvation.
Some situations call for drastic action. Consider what the world would be like if the Allied powers had not taken decisive action against Germany and Japan in WW II. To say God was immoral in any of those actions would be like saying the Allies were immoral in what we did to Germany and Japan in WW II. In reality, much more was at stake in Numbers 31.
Ted wrote: Secondly when we claim that Jesus is God and him only do we worship, we are ignoring the Holy Trinity. It falls under the label of "Jesusolatry". Personally I am a Trinitarian Christian and we must be sure to praise the Trinity and not just Jesus.
The Holy Trinity is the Godhead not just Jesus who in fact said at one point that the Father was greater then he. God Almighty includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.Relax, Ted. I’m a trinitarian just like you. I believe the Father is God. I believe the Son is God. I believe the Holy Spirit is God. Three persons, one God? One God, three manifestations? Actually, Scripture is ambiguous on the subject. To split hairs on it would be to go beyond what Scripture says. The precise, detailed nature of the Godhead is beyond our comprehension. Any extreme view that makes one member of the Godhead “God†to the exclusion of the other two is certainly wrong.
But worshipping Jesus worships the other two. Consider Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
telaquapacky :-6
I do not hold the same view as you do. We are told in the NT that we see in Jesus the very nature of the one True God. Nowhere in Jesus do I see the murder of folks.
If we look at Num. 31 we get the impression that a just God arbitrarily not only kills the male soldiers but all the men, women and innocent children and then allows the Hebrew men to save the virgins for themselves. The writier, whoever it was, sure had a handle on soldiers.
The claim that they were saving those women is spurious. They were taken against their will. They were forced to engage in sex with the soldiers (a good time was had by all except of course the women). Then if they didn't measure up or wouldn't cooperate they would be released. Released to what? The ostricization of a used woman who would never be able to get a job or have a loving family. Some god!
Then in one of the Psalms we see God okaying that the little children will have their brains dashed out on the rocks. Some god!
If we see these various acts that have been mentioned in the OT as coming from God and look at the God that we see manifest in Jesus then we have a god with a multiple personality problem and far from Just. None of it fits the actions or words of Jesus.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I do not hold the same view as you do. We are told in the NT that we see in Jesus the very nature of the one True God. Nowhere in Jesus do I see the murder of folks.
If we look at Num. 31 we get the impression that a just God arbitrarily not only kills the male soldiers but all the men, women and innocent children and then allows the Hebrew men to save the virgins for themselves. The writier, whoever it was, sure had a handle on soldiers.
The claim that they were saving those women is spurious. They were taken against their will. They were forced to engage in sex with the soldiers (a good time was had by all except of course the women). Then if they didn't measure up or wouldn't cooperate they would be released. Released to what? The ostricization of a used woman who would never be able to get a job or have a loving family. Some god!
Then in one of the Psalms we see God okaying that the little children will have their brains dashed out on the rocks. Some god!
If we see these various acts that have been mentioned in the OT as coming from God and look at the God that we see manifest in Jesus then we have a god with a multiple personality problem and far from Just. None of it fits the actions or words of Jesus.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ted wrote: I do not hold the same view as you do. We are told in the NT that we see in Jesus the very nature of the one True God. Nowhere in Jesus do I see the murder of folks.Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
John 5:46, 47
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
As believers we are in a war. At the time of the kingdom of Israel, the battles were fought with carnal weapons. In our times we battle with spiritual weapons. The sword of the Spirit is the word of God. There is a significant difference between the justice of God and murder.
Ted wrote: If we look at Num. 31 we get the impression that a just God arbitrarily not only kills the male soldiers but all the men, women and innocent children and then allows the Hebrew men to save the virgins for themselves. The writier, whoever it was, sure had a handle on soldiers.You yourself have said that we can’t judge some of the actions of the ancients by modern moral standards. I believe that was your defense of the Inquisition and the Crusades- acts certainly no less bloody or cruel than described in Numbers 31, but those were Roman Catholic acts, whereas Numbers 31 describes Jewish acts- is there some reason for the different opinions?
Numbers 31:16 clearly explains a righteous counteroffensive to the Midianites who used the strategy of Balaam against the Israelites. If Balaam’s strategy doesn’t seem grave enough to justify so harsh a treatment of the Midianites, consider that Jude and Revelation are still talking about it fifteen centuries later. Read Jude starting in verse 11 and Revelation 2:14. In God’s eyes the Midianites were guilty of something that called for decisive action.
Ted wrote: The claim that they were saving those women is spurious. They were taken against their will. They were forced to engage in sex with the soldiers (a good time was had by all except of course the women). Then if they didn't measure up or wouldn't cooperate they would be released. Released to what? The ostricization of a used woman who would never be able to get a job or have a loving family. Some god!You are making quite a few prurient assumptions here. The Law of Moses provided for the moral and humane treatment of prisoners and slaves, especially women. Israelite men were counseled against taking foreign women as wives. A provision was made that if an Israelite male took a wife from among the captives, and later decided to let her go, he was to make sure that she was provided for. Certainly there were some who dealt unrighteously, but they did so in disobedience to God- not with His approval.
Ted wrote: Then in one of the Psalms we see God okaying that the little children will have their brains dashed out on the rocks. Some god!A superficial reading of Psalm 137:9 does indeed sound depraved. But a completely different view is shown when one reads the Psalm as it was intended by the author. Psalm 137 is a prophetic lament for the Israelites when they were captives in Babylon. The theme of Psalm 137 is echoed in Jeremiah 51:24 and Revelation 18:6. "Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion," declares the LORD.†(Jeremiah 51:24) “Give back to her (Babylon) as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.†(Revelation 18:6) Compare to Psalm 137:8,9 “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.†A superficial reading might lead one to make some rash assumptions. Does David say who will be doing the mayhem against the infants? God? David himself? It doesn’t say, and we ought not to assume. The point David is making at the end of Psalm 137 is, “Look out, Babylon. What goes around comes around. You guys got your jollies dashing our infants against the rocks. Someday someone else is going to get their jollies dashing your infants against the rocks.†It’s called justice, my brother. We serve a just and holy God.
Ted wrote: If we see these various acts that have been mentioned in the OT as coming from God and look at the God that we see manifest in Jesus then we have a god with a multiple personality problem and far from Just. None of it fits the actions or words of Jesus.We ought to be careful not to embrace a one-sided theology that magnifies the mercy and gentleness of Jesus to the exclusion of His justice. He came the first time to save all who would hear Him and repent. He will come the second time to execute judgment.
Luke 13:1-5
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Matthew 11:21-24
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
Acts 17:30, 31
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
There is absolutely no incongruity between the character of the Son and the Father as described in every word of Holy Scripture, if it is read and understood in obedience to the Spirit.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
John 5:46, 47
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
As believers we are in a war. At the time of the kingdom of Israel, the battles were fought with carnal weapons. In our times we battle with spiritual weapons. The sword of the Spirit is the word of God. There is a significant difference between the justice of God and murder.
Ted wrote: If we look at Num. 31 we get the impression that a just God arbitrarily not only kills the male soldiers but all the men, women and innocent children and then allows the Hebrew men to save the virgins for themselves. The writier, whoever it was, sure had a handle on soldiers.You yourself have said that we can’t judge some of the actions of the ancients by modern moral standards. I believe that was your defense of the Inquisition and the Crusades- acts certainly no less bloody or cruel than described in Numbers 31, but those were Roman Catholic acts, whereas Numbers 31 describes Jewish acts- is there some reason for the different opinions?
Numbers 31:16 clearly explains a righteous counteroffensive to the Midianites who used the strategy of Balaam against the Israelites. If Balaam’s strategy doesn’t seem grave enough to justify so harsh a treatment of the Midianites, consider that Jude and Revelation are still talking about it fifteen centuries later. Read Jude starting in verse 11 and Revelation 2:14. In God’s eyes the Midianites were guilty of something that called for decisive action.
Ted wrote: The claim that they were saving those women is spurious. They were taken against their will. They were forced to engage in sex with the soldiers (a good time was had by all except of course the women). Then if they didn't measure up or wouldn't cooperate they would be released. Released to what? The ostricization of a used woman who would never be able to get a job or have a loving family. Some god!You are making quite a few prurient assumptions here. The Law of Moses provided for the moral and humane treatment of prisoners and slaves, especially women. Israelite men were counseled against taking foreign women as wives. A provision was made that if an Israelite male took a wife from among the captives, and later decided to let her go, he was to make sure that she was provided for. Certainly there were some who dealt unrighteously, but they did so in disobedience to God- not with His approval.
Ted wrote: Then in one of the Psalms we see God okaying that the little children will have their brains dashed out on the rocks. Some god!A superficial reading of Psalm 137:9 does indeed sound depraved. But a completely different view is shown when one reads the Psalm as it was intended by the author. Psalm 137 is a prophetic lament for the Israelites when they were captives in Babylon. The theme of Psalm 137 is echoed in Jeremiah 51:24 and Revelation 18:6. "Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion," declares the LORD.†(Jeremiah 51:24) “Give back to her (Babylon) as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.†(Revelation 18:6) Compare to Psalm 137:8,9 “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.†A superficial reading might lead one to make some rash assumptions. Does David say who will be doing the mayhem against the infants? God? David himself? It doesn’t say, and we ought not to assume. The point David is making at the end of Psalm 137 is, “Look out, Babylon. What goes around comes around. You guys got your jollies dashing our infants against the rocks. Someday someone else is going to get their jollies dashing your infants against the rocks.†It’s called justice, my brother. We serve a just and holy God.
Ted wrote: If we see these various acts that have been mentioned in the OT as coming from God and look at the God that we see manifest in Jesus then we have a god with a multiple personality problem and far from Just. None of it fits the actions or words of Jesus.We ought to be careful not to embrace a one-sided theology that magnifies the mercy and gentleness of Jesus to the exclusion of His justice. He came the first time to save all who would hear Him and repent. He will come the second time to execute judgment.
Luke 13:1-5
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Matthew 11:21-24
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
Acts 17:30, 31
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
There is absolutely no incongruity between the character of the Son and the Father as described in every word of Holy Scripture, if it is read and understood in obedience to the Spirit.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
telaquapacky :-6
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
If this in fact came from Jesus which is doubful it clearly says exactly what would happen. His message of distributive Justice and compassion would divide the people. It did and that is exactly why he was executed. He was disturbing the social milieu of the day.
John 5:46, 47
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
A quick review of the scholarship up to today will clearly show that these words did not come from the historical Jesus but from John's own theology.
You yourself have said that we can’t judge some of the actions of the ancients by modern moral standards. I believe that was your defense of the Inquisition and the Crusades- acts certainly no less bloody or cruel than described in Numbers 31, but those were Roman Catholic acts, whereas Numbers 31 describes Jewish acts- is there some reason for the different opinions?
There sure is a reason for the difference. In Numbers 31 it is supposedly God who is condoning this behaviour. It was not God condoning the crusades or the inquisition. I'd say that is a big difference. If you accept Num 31 as from God then you are accusing God of committing war crimes. I would never, personally do that.
You are making quite a few prurient assumptions here. The Law of Moses provided for the moral and humane treatment of prisoners and slaves, especially women. Israelite men were counseled against taking foreign women as wives. A provision was made that if an Israelite male took a wife from among the captives, and later decided to let her go, he was to make sure that she was provided for. Certainly there were some who dealt unrighteously, but they did so in disobedience to God- not with His approval.
Now I get it. The rape of women is okay as long as you treat them decently after you've finished. In those days a "used" woman had absolutely nothing to look forward to in the sense of a husband or decent family life. Sorry, but I don't buy that. It is an atrocity that some would say God okayed. Hardly.
A superficial reading of Psalm 137:9 does indeed sound depraved. But a completely different view is shown when one reads the Psalm as it was intended by the author. Psalm 137 is a prophetic lament for the Israelites when they were captives in Babylon. The theme of Psalm 137 is echoed in Jeremiah 51:24 and Revelation 18:6. "Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion," declares the LORD.†(Jeremiah 51:24) “Give back to her (Babylon) as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.†(Revelation 18:6) Compare to Psalm 137:8,9 “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.†A superficial reading might lead one to make some rash assumptions. Does David say who will be doing the mayhem against the infants? God? David himself? It doesn’t say, and we ought not to assume. The point David is making at the end of Psalm 137 is, “Look out, Babylon. What goes around comes around. You guys got your jollies dashing our infants against the rocks. Someday someone else is going to get their jollies dashing your infants against the rocks.†It’s called justice, my brother. We serve a just and holy God.
So its okay to behave in a depraved manner because someone else did. Its okay to lower oneselt to the level of the other. I certainly don't think it is. Nor did Jesus in any way teach such a behaviour. It is an atrocity. It certainly is not justice.
Luke 13:1-5
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Matthew 11:21-24
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
I have a complete listing of the words that go back to the historical Jesus and this is not among them. They are in direct contradiction to what our Lord taught and lived.
It is clearly time to get rid of the "original sin" doctrine. It is simply a non-starter. It is time to acknowledge that right from the word go "God saw all that He had made and behold it was good." It is time to talk about original blessing. The idea that we are all base and evil is pure nonsense.
Each one of us is born a clean slate. We have within us the capacity to choose to do good or evil. Some make a wise choice and some make a bad choice or choices.
What counts is not dogma or doctrine but living in a loving, compassionate developing and transforming relationship with Almight God. It is this transforming relationship that it is all about.
The idea of preaching sin and judgement is nothing more then fear mongering. The wonderful Good News: "If you don't do as I say you gonna burn baby? hardly sounds like good news. It is plain and simple fear mongering and any faith built of fear is questionable at best. Like if I don't say yes to Jesus I'll burn so I better say yes just to hedge my bets. Some faith!
I don't usuall have posts this long. What happened? LOL
Shalom
Ted
:-6
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
If this in fact came from Jesus which is doubful it clearly says exactly what would happen. His message of distributive Justice and compassion would divide the people. It did and that is exactly why he was executed. He was disturbing the social milieu of the day.
John 5:46, 47
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
A quick review of the scholarship up to today will clearly show that these words did not come from the historical Jesus but from John's own theology.
You yourself have said that we can’t judge some of the actions of the ancients by modern moral standards. I believe that was your defense of the Inquisition and the Crusades- acts certainly no less bloody or cruel than described in Numbers 31, but those were Roman Catholic acts, whereas Numbers 31 describes Jewish acts- is there some reason for the different opinions?
There sure is a reason for the difference. In Numbers 31 it is supposedly God who is condoning this behaviour. It was not God condoning the crusades or the inquisition. I'd say that is a big difference. If you accept Num 31 as from God then you are accusing God of committing war crimes. I would never, personally do that.
You are making quite a few prurient assumptions here. The Law of Moses provided for the moral and humane treatment of prisoners and slaves, especially women. Israelite men were counseled against taking foreign women as wives. A provision was made that if an Israelite male took a wife from among the captives, and later decided to let her go, he was to make sure that she was provided for. Certainly there were some who dealt unrighteously, but they did so in disobedience to God- not with His approval.
Now I get it. The rape of women is okay as long as you treat them decently after you've finished. In those days a "used" woman had absolutely nothing to look forward to in the sense of a husband or decent family life. Sorry, but I don't buy that. It is an atrocity that some would say God okayed. Hardly.
A superficial reading of Psalm 137:9 does indeed sound depraved. But a completely different view is shown when one reads the Psalm as it was intended by the author. Psalm 137 is a prophetic lament for the Israelites when they were captives in Babylon. The theme of Psalm 137 is echoed in Jeremiah 51:24 and Revelation 18:6. "Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion," declares the LORD.†(Jeremiah 51:24) “Give back to her (Babylon) as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.†(Revelation 18:6) Compare to Psalm 137:8,9 “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.†A superficial reading might lead one to make some rash assumptions. Does David say who will be doing the mayhem against the infants? God? David himself? It doesn’t say, and we ought not to assume. The point David is making at the end of Psalm 137 is, “Look out, Babylon. What goes around comes around. You guys got your jollies dashing our infants against the rocks. Someday someone else is going to get their jollies dashing your infants against the rocks.†It’s called justice, my brother. We serve a just and holy God.
So its okay to behave in a depraved manner because someone else did. Its okay to lower oneselt to the level of the other. I certainly don't think it is. Nor did Jesus in any way teach such a behaviour. It is an atrocity. It certainly is not justice.
Luke 13:1-5
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Matthew 11:21-24
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
I have a complete listing of the words that go back to the historical Jesus and this is not among them. They are in direct contradiction to what our Lord taught and lived.
It is clearly time to get rid of the "original sin" doctrine. It is simply a non-starter. It is time to acknowledge that right from the word go "God saw all that He had made and behold it was good." It is time to talk about original blessing. The idea that we are all base and evil is pure nonsense.
Each one of us is born a clean slate. We have within us the capacity to choose to do good or evil. Some make a wise choice and some make a bad choice or choices.
What counts is not dogma or doctrine but living in a loving, compassionate developing and transforming relationship with Almight God. It is this transforming relationship that it is all about.
The idea of preaching sin and judgement is nothing more then fear mongering. The wonderful Good News: "If you don't do as I say you gonna burn baby? hardly sounds like good news. It is plain and simple fear mongering and any faith built of fear is questionable at best. Like if I don't say yes to Jesus I'll burn so I better say yes just to hedge my bets. Some faith!
I don't usuall have posts this long. What happened? LOL
Shalom
Ted
:-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
The last three posts appear on page thirteen and were written on Friday the 13th so, before any responses to said posts occur, realize they were under the influence of the DEVIL. :wah:
Mine included.
Mine included.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
John 5:46, 47
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Ted wrote: A quick review of the scholarship up to today will clearly show that these words did not come from the historical Jesus but from John's own theology.The Word of God reveals that your “scholars†did not do a very thorough investigation, Ted. That Moses wrote about Jesus in his law is in no way unique to John. Luke also testifies that Moses wrote about Jesus.
Luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Luke 24:44
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
Luke also attributes to Paul a solid theology that the Law of Moses tells about Jesus.
Acts 26:22, 23
But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- 23 that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Paul, himself confirms Luke’s testimony
Romans 3:21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. (Paul indicates that when Moses wrote about the seed of Abraham, he was writing about Christ)
Hebrews 3:5
Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future.
1 Corinthians 10:2-4
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
This clarifies the difference between your Bible study method and mine. I tailor my theology to what the Bible says. You and your “scholars†tailor what the Bible says to suit their own theology. That isn’t called scholarship where I come from.
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Ted wrote: A quick review of the scholarship up to today will clearly show that these words did not come from the historical Jesus but from John's own theology.The Word of God reveals that your “scholars†did not do a very thorough investigation, Ted. That Moses wrote about Jesus in his law is in no way unique to John. Luke also testifies that Moses wrote about Jesus.
Luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Luke 24:44
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
Luke also attributes to Paul a solid theology that the Law of Moses tells about Jesus.
Acts 26:22, 23
But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- 23 that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Paul, himself confirms Luke’s testimony
Romans 3:21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. (Paul indicates that when Moses wrote about the seed of Abraham, he was writing about Christ)
Hebrews 3:5
Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future.
1 Corinthians 10:2-4
They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
This clarifies the difference between your Bible study method and mine. I tailor my theology to what the Bible says. You and your “scholars†tailor what the Bible says to suit their own theology. That isn’t called scholarship where I come from.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
tela,
telaquapacky wrote: This clarifies the difference between your Bible study method and mine. I tailor my theology to what the Bible says. You and your “scholars†tailor what the Bible says to suit their own theology. That isn’t called scholarship where I come from.
are you claiming you don't tailor the bible to suit your theology?
note: this is not a moderation. I'm on vacation.
telaquapacky wrote: This clarifies the difference between your Bible study method and mine. I tailor my theology to what the Bible says. You and your “scholars†tailor what the Bible says to suit their own theology. That isn’t called scholarship where I come from.
are you claiming you don't tailor the bible to suit your theology?
note: this is not a moderation. I'm on vacation.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote: tela, are you claiming you don't tailor the bible to suit your theology? If I said I never ever misunderstood a verse, it would be like saying I know everything. Nobody knows everything, and I study the Bible every day seeking better understanding. If anyone has a different view of any verse, let’s hear it. But remember that no solid doctrine is based on one single verse. You have to look at what every verse in the Bible that deals with the same subject has to say.
There's a big difference between interpreting a certain verse in light of what most other verses on the subject have said, as opposed to scrapping a verse because it doesn't match one's system of theology. There is also a difference between leaving alone a verse that doesn't yet make sense, and pray for a better understanding to emerge later, as opposed to looking for excuses to impeach the authority of the verse.
I think all Bible students have "problem verses." But throwing out the "problem verses" is against the rules which I believe lead to finding the truth.
If I said I never ever misunderstood a verse, it would be like saying I know everything. Nobody knows everything, and I study the Bible every day seeking better understanding. If anyone has a different view of any verse, let’s hear it. But remember that no solid doctrine is based on one single verse. You have to look at what every verse in the Bible that deals with the same subject has to say. There's a big difference between interpreting a certain verse in light of what most other verses on the subject have said, as opposed to scrapping a verse because it doesn't match one's system of theology. There is also a difference between leaving alone a verse that doesn't yet make sense, and pray for a better understanding to emerge later, as opposed to looking for excuses to impeach the authority of the verse.
I think all Bible students have "problem verses." But throwing out the "problem verses" is against the rules which I believe lead to finding the truth.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
With the Bible being midrashic and making great use of metaphor one has to take this into account while reading the Bible. In fact if one reads the Bible without understanding that background then one is in serious danger of reading into the Bible whatever they want. If we don't understand that they we fail to understand what the authors meant or intended by a specific chapter or verse etc.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Shalom
Ted :-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
what I meant, tela, is that you can search the bible for verses that support your arguement and ignore the ones that don't. Just like most people do.
I've seen Footloose. (They used quotes from the bible to fight the minister who wouldn't let them dance.)
everyone chooses the verses that they want people to hear to support their arguement and that the same verse can mean something different to different people is no surprise since the interpretation is then backed up with other chosen verse. EVERYBODY DOES IT.
I've seen Footloose. (They used quotes from the bible to fight the minister who wouldn't let them dance.)
everyone chooses the verses that they want people to hear to support their arguement and that the same verse can mean something different to different people is no surprise since the interpretation is then backed up with other chosen verse. EVERYBODY DOES IT.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote: what I meant, tela, is that you can search the bible for verses that support your arguement and ignore the ones that don't. Just like most people do. I feel that what makes my theology different is that I don’t ignore the verses of Scripture that most Christians do ignore. But there are verses that give me problems too. I like to think that the reason some verses give me trouble is not so much what they say as the way they say it.
If we Bible quoters leave certain verses out of our arguments it doesn’t always mean we’re trying to hide something. Like I mentioned above, some verses don’t necessarily argue against a point we are making, but the way they say it, if read superficially, could easily be misunderstood to mean something very different. For example, I am discontented with Paul’s use of the terminology “Old Covenant†to mean righteousness by works, and “New Covenant†to mean righteousness by faith. Christians at Paul’s time understood what he meant, because they lived when Judaism had degenerated into a works system, and the righteousness of faith brought to light in the Way was something “new†to them. But there is ample evidence in the Old Testament that in God’s eyes, our righteousness has always and only been by faith in Him. Righteousness by faith is not some “new thing.†But long ago the Jews turned it into righteousness by works, and by the time of Christ, works had been around so long, it was old to them. But righteousness by faith is truly older- it is the original way God wanted it to be, so in reality, if there is an “Old†Covenant, it is righteousness by faith, not righteousness by works. I know what Paul was trying to say, but I don’t often quote verses using the “Old/New covenant†terminology because they can be misleading.
Another reason we leave out certain verses is that a verse might help your argument, but it may also contain another theological idea that you just don’t want to introduce into the discussion because it will divert the reader’s attention. That’s called “opening a can of worms.†In Acts 23:6, Paul did this intentionally to create a furor in the courtroom that would divide and distract his opponents from their agenda.
I actually leave out a lot of verses which support my ideas, simply because they don’t make the point very strongly, and using them takes more space and uses up my “attention-span†capital.
There’s also the question of context. I’ll give you a brief example:
“There were tears in her eyes because she found tears in her dress.â€Â
How do you know what the first “tears†means? Tears in the eyes means she’s crying (or her eyes are watering). How do you know what the second “tears†means? Tears in her dress means her dress was torn, the fabric was ripped. You had to read the whole sentence. Well, in Scripture there are verses which use terms that you can’t really understand unless you read the whole paragraph, or maybe even the whole chapter the verse is located in. That would make for a very long post! No one will slog through all of that, and it will never present a focused reason for your position to someone who disagrees with you.
Using “proof texts†is acceptable because even the New Testament writers sometimes quote proof texts from the Old Testament to prove their points. But using proof texts does have limitations. It’s impossible to prove that there is no verse in all of Scripture that contradicts your point. The person you are discussing with is at liberty to search Scripture for themselves. The apostle Paul commended the people in a town called Berea, because they did not just automatically accept what he told them, but searched the Scriptures themselves to make sure what he was saying was true (Acts 17:11).
koan wrote: I've seen Footloose. (They used quotes from the bible to fight the minister who wouldn't let them dance.) The Bible does not prohibit dancing. But the Lord’s Prayer does include the words “lead us not into temptation.†I have heard of people whose habit was to go to singles bars to dance, and to cruise for sex. Dancing or not dancing is not the point. The point is whether our lives reflect a sincere love of Christ. If so, a sincere Christian will avoid dancing in a social situation that can lead to temptation.
koan wrote: everyone chooses the verses that they want people to hear to support their arguement and that the same verse can mean something different to different people is no surprise since the interpretation is then backed up with other chosen verse. EVERYBODY DOES IT. Your question is in itself a statement on your theology of the Bible. If some verses support a point and others don’t, and this problem is common to all Bible readers, you’re saying that the Bible contradicts itself. That the Bible does or doesn’t contradict itself is not provable because the Bible is a spiritual book that often uses highly figurative language. The exact translation is disputable in some places for various reasons. Those of us who believe the Bible is God’s word take it by faith, because if there were no divinely inspired ancient primary document of God’s word, we are left nothing to base an understanding of the thoughts and intentions of God, than the writings of men. You may say, “But men wrote the Bible!†True, but we believe that while Scripture is not a word-for-word transcript dictated by God, the ideas were nevertheless supernaturally inspired by God to an extent unequaled by any other document in existence. I don’t like to call the accounts in the Bible “stories.†Rather they are testimonies- eyewitness accounts of experiences of real people with the living God. (see Second Peter 1:16, 20,21) In other books, men may have written some very fine and inspired things, but we believe all other religious writing must be measured against the Bible, using the Bible as the highest authority.
The best answer to the question of what we do with verses we don’t like, is to answer the question with another question- why don’t we like them? If they go against some pet theology, or if they accuse us of sin we prefer not to admit is a sin, the objection may be self-serving. But if we survey all verses on a subject and ten of them say “Yes†and one of them says “No,†if we believe as Jesus said that “Scripture cannot be brokenâ€Â, we examine the “no†verse carefully and try to understand why. There’s usually a logical explanation. But if one’s theology is based on one verse that says “Yes,†while there are ten other verses that say “No,†and they look for reasons to explain away the ten that say “No,†it is clear that they are reading into the Bible what they want it to say, rather than reading out of it what it really means. Does everybody do that? A lot of people, probably, but not everybody.
If we Bible quoters leave certain verses out of our arguments it doesn’t always mean we’re trying to hide something. Like I mentioned above, some verses don’t necessarily argue against a point we are making, but the way they say it, if read superficially, could easily be misunderstood to mean something very different. For example, I am discontented with Paul’s use of the terminology “Old Covenant†to mean righteousness by works, and “New Covenant†to mean righteousness by faith. Christians at Paul’s time understood what he meant, because they lived when Judaism had degenerated into a works system, and the righteousness of faith brought to light in the Way was something “new†to them. But there is ample evidence in the Old Testament that in God’s eyes, our righteousness has always and only been by faith in Him. Righteousness by faith is not some “new thing.†But long ago the Jews turned it into righteousness by works, and by the time of Christ, works had been around so long, it was old to them. But righteousness by faith is truly older- it is the original way God wanted it to be, so in reality, if there is an “Old†Covenant, it is righteousness by faith, not righteousness by works. I know what Paul was trying to say, but I don’t often quote verses using the “Old/New covenant†terminology because they can be misleading.
Another reason we leave out certain verses is that a verse might help your argument, but it may also contain another theological idea that you just don’t want to introduce into the discussion because it will divert the reader’s attention. That’s called “opening a can of worms.†In Acts 23:6, Paul did this intentionally to create a furor in the courtroom that would divide and distract his opponents from their agenda.
I actually leave out a lot of verses which support my ideas, simply because they don’t make the point very strongly, and using them takes more space and uses up my “attention-span†capital.
There’s also the question of context. I’ll give you a brief example:
“There were tears in her eyes because she found tears in her dress.â€Â
How do you know what the first “tears†means? Tears in the eyes means she’s crying (or her eyes are watering). How do you know what the second “tears†means? Tears in her dress means her dress was torn, the fabric was ripped. You had to read the whole sentence. Well, in Scripture there are verses which use terms that you can’t really understand unless you read the whole paragraph, or maybe even the whole chapter the verse is located in. That would make for a very long post! No one will slog through all of that, and it will never present a focused reason for your position to someone who disagrees with you.
Using “proof texts†is acceptable because even the New Testament writers sometimes quote proof texts from the Old Testament to prove their points. But using proof texts does have limitations. It’s impossible to prove that there is no verse in all of Scripture that contradicts your point. The person you are discussing with is at liberty to search Scripture for themselves. The apostle Paul commended the people in a town called Berea, because they did not just automatically accept what he told them, but searched the Scriptures themselves to make sure what he was saying was true (Acts 17:11).
koan wrote: I've seen Footloose. (They used quotes from the bible to fight the minister who wouldn't let them dance.)
The Bible does not prohibit dancing. But the Lord’s Prayer does include the words “lead us not into temptation.†I have heard of people whose habit was to go to singles bars to dance, and to cruise for sex. Dancing or not dancing is not the point. The point is whether our lives reflect a sincere love of Christ. If so, a sincere Christian will avoid dancing in a social situation that can lead to temptation.koan wrote: everyone chooses the verses that they want people to hear to support their arguement and that the same verse can mean something different to different people is no surprise since the interpretation is then backed up with other chosen verse. EVERYBODY DOES IT. Your question is in itself a statement on your theology of the Bible. If some verses support a point and others don’t, and this problem is common to all Bible readers, you’re saying that the Bible contradicts itself. That the Bible does or doesn’t contradict itself is not provable because the Bible is a spiritual book that often uses highly figurative language. The exact translation is disputable in some places for various reasons. Those of us who believe the Bible is God’s word take it by faith, because if there were no divinely inspired ancient primary document of God’s word, we are left nothing to base an understanding of the thoughts and intentions of God, than the writings of men. You may say, “But men wrote the Bible!†True, but we believe that while Scripture is not a word-for-word transcript dictated by God, the ideas were nevertheless supernaturally inspired by God to an extent unequaled by any other document in existence. I don’t like to call the accounts in the Bible “stories.†Rather they are testimonies- eyewitness accounts of experiences of real people with the living God. (see Second Peter 1:16, 20,21) In other books, men may have written some very fine and inspired things, but we believe all other religious writing must be measured against the Bible, using the Bible as the highest authority.
The best answer to the question of what we do with verses we don’t like, is to answer the question with another question- why don’t we like them? If they go against some pet theology, or if they accuse us of sin we prefer not to admit is a sin, the objection may be self-serving. But if we survey all verses on a subject and ten of them say “Yes†and one of them says “No,†if we believe as Jesus said that “Scripture cannot be brokenâ€Â, we examine the “no†verse carefully and try to understand why. There’s usually a logical explanation. But if one’s theology is based on one verse that says “Yes,†while there are ten other verses that say “No,†and they look for reasons to explain away the ten that say “No,†it is clear that they are reading into the Bible what they want it to say, rather than reading out of it what it really means. Does everybody do that? A lot of people, probably, but not everybody.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
If we fail to understand the writing style of the Hebrews then it is virtually impossible to understand what they meant by what they wrote.
This leads us into trying to explain some very ludicrous situations like the sun standing still for a day or the myth of Adam and Eve or thelegend of Noah. This tyle of course carried over into the New Testament as well. One example is the midrashic story of the Birth of Jesus. The kernel of history there is that Jesus was indeed born, which is what happens to all humans. The rest is midrashic: no star, no angels, no wisement, in fact Jesus was probably born in an upper room in Nazareth.
However, due to the midrashic style he had to be born in Bethlehem and there had to be a star and wisemen to say nothing about the angels. That is pure midrash.
Shalom
Ted :-6
This leads us into trying to explain some very ludicrous situations like the sun standing still for a day or the myth of Adam and Eve or thelegend of Noah. This tyle of course carried over into the New Testament as well. One example is the midrashic story of the Birth of Jesus. The kernel of history there is that Jesus was indeed born, which is what happens to all humans. The rest is midrashic: no star, no angels, no wisement, in fact Jesus was probably born in an upper room in Nazareth.
However, due to the midrashic style he had to be born in Bethlehem and there had to be a star and wisemen to say nothing about the angels. That is pure midrash.
Shalom
Ted :-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
It just crossed my mind that a belief that Jesus will return kind of requires a belief in reincarnation. To believe that it is possible for the same being to return and not an entirely new child of God supports the reincarnation principle in general. Either that or some belief in magic as a replacement to the concept on how it can happen. But then Christianity (in general) calls magic "miracles" when it applies to them and "witchcraft" when it does not.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote: It just crossed my mind that a belief that Jesus will return kind of requires a belief in reincarnation. To believe that it is possible for the same being to return and not an entirely new child of God supports the reincarnation principle in general. Either that or some belief in magic as a replacement to the concept on how it can happen. Interesting thought, Koan, but Christ is not going to return the same way He came the first time. The Messiah came only once as a babe to grow into adulthood, do His ministry, be crucified, be resurrected, return to heaven. He's been in heaven ever since ministering as our High Priest, in a heavenly temple, of which Solomon's Temple was only a symbolic model on earth. The Most Holy Place of that temple in heaven is the throne room of the universe where God the Father sits (He told me to say “Hi.â€Â). The book of Hebrews tells us Jesus is presently pleading our cases with His own blood, just as the Jewish high priest did with the blood of a lamb once a year on the Day of Atonement. All the Jewish ceremonial days were also prophetic of parts of Jesus' Ministry- not a word of what Moses wrote went to waste.
By the way, His name isn't "Jesus." That is an anglicized version of a latinized version of His real name which is "Y’shua" or "Joshua," which means, "The Lord Saves." I call Him by the common name, Jesus so that people will understand who I’m talking about.
Anyway, when Jesus finishes His ministry in the Most Holy Place in the temple in heaven, that session will have settled forever who is saved and who is lost, and then Jesus will return to earth, with a very large retinue of angels. The judgment of all humanity has to be completed before Jesus returns, because at that moment, the saved are transported to heaven, and the lost are interred on earth.
To begin with, resurrection is a completely different concept than reincarnation. (Everything I am about to say about reincarnation is my own assumption of what I think people believe about it- I’m not up with the literature, so you’ll have to forgive my incorrect assumptions) I think Reincarnation assumes that human beings have an immortal spirit within them, so that when the person dies, only their body dies, and the spirit has to go somewhere. At the moment of a person’s death, somewhere a new human life is in the process of being conceived. Supposedly, the spirit liberated from the death of their previous body is able to move into the new body being conceived. Later, the person who lived before will live again, born perhaps to new parents, maybe even in a different country. I have heard that Hindus believe that humans can be reincarnated as other animals or even insects and vice versa. That would explain some folks’ behaviors!
I have two problems with reincarnation. One is that it is not Biblical. The Bible doesn’t teach that a human being has an immortal spirit (what?!). Most Christian churches teach that it does, but that information doesn’t agree with the Bible. The Bible teaches that when ya die, yer dead. Gone. Lights out. – [I[until the resurrection, which I’ll explain in a minute. The other problem I have with reincarnation is that the population of the earth has always been expanding, and is way larger than it has ever been before. Where did all those spirits come from? I guess if one wants to believe in reincarnation, they can think of something to make up for the logistical problems.
How the Biblical concept of resurrection differs, is that when a person dies, their consciousness can’t be sustained without a body because we are mortal. In death our thoughts, emotions, feelings and presence evaporate into nothingness, like the light goes out when you cut off electric current from the light bulb. The body biodegrades back into the earth from which it came. Even bones may powderize under some conditions, after a millennium or two. And what happens to people who either burn to death (completely) or are cremated to ashes? Given enough time, the body eventually returns to dust.
The Bible talks about two resurrections, one of the saved and one of the lost. The saved will be resurrected at the second coming of Christ. Christ will come from somewhere in space and will appear in earth’s sky with so great a number of angels, they will look like a cloud of very bright light. As He moves over the earth on resurrection day, the graves of the saved will open ahead of Him. God will reconstruct physically the saved in the places where their old bodies were buried (or ashes were scattered). Their graves will open up, and healthy, vibrant people will levitate out of them. Then, guided and comforted by angels, they will rise to meet Jesus in the air. Also, as Jesus approaches, the saved who are still alive on the earth will find their bodies transformed to eternally-living healthy bodies, and they will follow those resurrected from their graves, to rise and meet Jesus in the air for the trip to heaven. Somewhere out in space, God has built a New Jerusalem, described in Revelation, with streets of gold, transparent as glass (like no gold you or I have ever seen- or is it the quality of our new eyes, or of the light of that city which makes it transparent?) That’s where we’re going.
What happens to the lost? The lost who are dead in their graves are undisturbed by all the light and noise of Jesus’ coming, except, I think for those who were directly responsible for His crucifixion. I believe they’ll be revived in some form to witness Christ’s coming. Those are alive on the earth, and who are lost, when they see Christ coming, will be struck with such intense and indescribable panic, they will run down stairwells into basements, jump into holes, get under any shelter they can find, to hide themselves from the face of Christ. While ahead of Christ is the spectacle of graves opening up and saved people rising in the air like helium balloons, behind Christ, is an advancing wall of fire as the surface of the earth is reduced to a desert littered with charred wreckage and bones. No lost people will survive. Only one person will be left behind alive on planet earth- Satan. He will be confined for one thousand years with no one to tempt, and nothing to do but think about and gaze upon the results of his rebellion.
For one thousand years, the saved will live in the New Jerusalem, out in space. The Bible doesn’t say what they’ll be doing there, but I’ve heard a speculation on this that I find compelling. When not walking the streets of gold, or drinking from the fountain of life, or eating from the tree of life, or singing with the angels, they will be poring over the records of the saved and the lost. There will be a lot of surprises for them- Why is this person not here? How did that person get here? (and the biggest surprise of all- how did I get here?) What happened to beloved friends and family members? The saved will live forever. There is no point in them always wondering about the justice of God. It is all there in the records, in living color. They will have a thousand years to prepare for what comes next.
At the end of the thousand years, the New Jerusalem disembarks from the location in space where it was parked, and makes a journey to earth, where it will remain forever- the capital city of an earth made new, restored like the Garden of Eden. As the New Jerusalem descends, Jesus goes out ahead of it, and descends to the Mount of Olives, which will part in two and flatten out for a resting place for the city, filled with the saved people of God. While this is happening, the graves of earth open up one more time. This time it is the lost who are resurrected- not in eternally-living bodies, but ordinary bodies that continue with all the scars and defects, infirmities and weaknesses the person had in life. They will wake up and look around wondering what happened, and why they are there. Then, Satan and his angels will “fill them in.†He will tell them they have one thing to do to gain eternal life- that is to attack and take the New Jerusalem. When they surround and attack the city, God will defend the city. Unable to dissuade them from attacking, God will finally repulse them by raining down fire upon the lost which will completely consume them and put them out of their grief and misery forever. That’s called the second death, or “Hell,†and from that death there will be no chance of a resurrection. The heart of God will grieve for those people forever- but it will be seen by every remaining living soul in the universe that God really had no choice, and His acts from the first to the last in earth’s history have always been flawlessly just.
By the way, His name isn't "Jesus." That is an anglicized version of a latinized version of His real name which is "Y’shua" or "Joshua," which means, "The Lord Saves." I call Him by the common name, Jesus so that people will understand who I’m talking about.
Anyway, when Jesus finishes His ministry in the Most Holy Place in the temple in heaven, that session will have settled forever who is saved and who is lost, and then Jesus will return to earth, with a very large retinue of angels. The judgment of all humanity has to be completed before Jesus returns, because at that moment, the saved are transported to heaven, and the lost are interred on earth.
To begin with, resurrection is a completely different concept than reincarnation. (Everything I am about to say about reincarnation is my own assumption of what I think people believe about it- I’m not up with the literature, so you’ll have to forgive my incorrect assumptions) I think Reincarnation assumes that human beings have an immortal spirit within them, so that when the person dies, only their body dies, and the spirit has to go somewhere. At the moment of a person’s death, somewhere a new human life is in the process of being conceived. Supposedly, the spirit liberated from the death of their previous body is able to move into the new body being conceived. Later, the person who lived before will live again, born perhaps to new parents, maybe even in a different country. I have heard that Hindus believe that humans can be reincarnated as other animals or even insects and vice versa. That would explain some folks’ behaviors!
I have two problems with reincarnation. One is that it is not Biblical. The Bible doesn’t teach that a human being has an immortal spirit (what?!). Most Christian churches teach that it does, but that information doesn’t agree with the Bible. The Bible teaches that when ya die, yer dead. Gone. Lights out. – [I[until the resurrection, which I’ll explain in a minute. The other problem I have with reincarnation is that the population of the earth has always been expanding, and is way larger than it has ever been before. Where did all those spirits come from? I guess if one wants to believe in reincarnation, they can think of something to make up for the logistical problems.
How the Biblical concept of resurrection differs, is that when a person dies, their consciousness can’t be sustained without a body because we are mortal. In death our thoughts, emotions, feelings and presence evaporate into nothingness, like the light goes out when you cut off electric current from the light bulb. The body biodegrades back into the earth from which it came. Even bones may powderize under some conditions, after a millennium or two. And what happens to people who either burn to death (completely) or are cremated to ashes? Given enough time, the body eventually returns to dust.
The Bible talks about two resurrections, one of the saved and one of the lost. The saved will be resurrected at the second coming of Christ. Christ will come from somewhere in space and will appear in earth’s sky with so great a number of angels, they will look like a cloud of very bright light. As He moves over the earth on resurrection day, the graves of the saved will open ahead of Him. God will reconstruct physically the saved in the places where their old bodies were buried (or ashes were scattered). Their graves will open up, and healthy, vibrant people will levitate out of them. Then, guided and comforted by angels, they will rise to meet Jesus in the air. Also, as Jesus approaches, the saved who are still alive on the earth will find their bodies transformed to eternally-living healthy bodies, and they will follow those resurrected from their graves, to rise and meet Jesus in the air for the trip to heaven. Somewhere out in space, God has built a New Jerusalem, described in Revelation, with streets of gold, transparent as glass (like no gold you or I have ever seen- or is it the quality of our new eyes, or of the light of that city which makes it transparent?) That’s where we’re going.
What happens to the lost? The lost who are dead in their graves are undisturbed by all the light and noise of Jesus’ coming, except, I think for those who were directly responsible for His crucifixion. I believe they’ll be revived in some form to witness Christ’s coming. Those are alive on the earth, and who are lost, when they see Christ coming, will be struck with such intense and indescribable panic, they will run down stairwells into basements, jump into holes, get under any shelter they can find, to hide themselves from the face of Christ. While ahead of Christ is the spectacle of graves opening up and saved people rising in the air like helium balloons, behind Christ, is an advancing wall of fire as the surface of the earth is reduced to a desert littered with charred wreckage and bones. No lost people will survive. Only one person will be left behind alive on planet earth- Satan. He will be confined for one thousand years with no one to tempt, and nothing to do but think about and gaze upon the results of his rebellion.
For one thousand years, the saved will live in the New Jerusalem, out in space. The Bible doesn’t say what they’ll be doing there, but I’ve heard a speculation on this that I find compelling. When not walking the streets of gold, or drinking from the fountain of life, or eating from the tree of life, or singing with the angels, they will be poring over the records of the saved and the lost. There will be a lot of surprises for them- Why is this person not here? How did that person get here? (and the biggest surprise of all- how did I get here?) What happened to beloved friends and family members? The saved will live forever. There is no point in them always wondering about the justice of God. It is all there in the records, in living color. They will have a thousand years to prepare for what comes next.
At the end of the thousand years, the New Jerusalem disembarks from the location in space where it was parked, and makes a journey to earth, where it will remain forever- the capital city of an earth made new, restored like the Garden of Eden. As the New Jerusalem descends, Jesus goes out ahead of it, and descends to the Mount of Olives, which will part in two and flatten out for a resting place for the city, filled with the saved people of God. While this is happening, the graves of earth open up one more time. This time it is the lost who are resurrected- not in eternally-living bodies, but ordinary bodies that continue with all the scars and defects, infirmities and weaknesses the person had in life. They will wake up and look around wondering what happened, and why they are there. Then, Satan and his angels will “fill them in.†He will tell them they have one thing to do to gain eternal life- that is to attack and take the New Jerusalem. When they surround and attack the city, God will defend the city. Unable to dissuade them from attacking, God will finally repulse them by raining down fire upon the lost which will completely consume them and put them out of their grief and misery forever. That’s called the second death, or “Hell,†and from that death there will be no chance of a resurrection. The heart of God will grieve for those people forever- but it will be seen by every remaining living soul in the universe that God really had no choice, and His acts from the first to the last in earth’s history have always been flawlessly just.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote: But then Christianity (in general) calls magic "miracles" when it applies to them and "witchcraft" when it does not.Depends on what you mean by “applies to them.†No servant of God except Christ, ever possessed magical qualities in and of themselves. Prophets and healers only pronounce what God is about to do- it isn’t anything they can or will do. People who speak in tongues (and I’m talking about real tongues, not the counterfeit that is so popular nowadays) don’t have any special talents. God can make a donkey speak. Fer pete’s sakes, we’re rotting fleshsacks. It’s all we can do to find our car keys in the morning (or am I just speaking for myself?) And on the other side, take a spirit medium for example. That person is someone who the spirits have decided, “we can use them- they’ll cooperate.†And the spirits are no way spirits of deceased human beings- we de-exist between death and resurrection, and we are “not available for comment.â€Â
There are only two types of spirits that can communicate with humans. One is the Holy Spirit, or godly angels, the other is angels who at the beginning joined Satan’s rebellion- fallen angels, otherwise called “demons.†Demons do not always lie- sometimes they tell the truth, or part-truth. But they have an agenda. Their agenda is to make sure that you are not resurrected when Jesus comes, but 1000 years later. They don’t want you to go to heaven, or live for eternity on the earth made new, or fly to distant galaxies to tell the unfallen inhabitants of other worlds first hand what it was like to be saved from sin by God’s grace. No, they want you to go where they are going. The main reason is that they have lost their place in heaven permanently. Unlike us, they have no Savior and no chance at redemption. Their days are numbered, and they know they are going to face some ugly music at the end. To top it off, those of us who are saved will take their places in heaven. This is more than the petty jealousy of a jilted lover- this is a big time loss for them and the fiery hot, intense resentment and hatred the fallen angels have for human beings is unimaginable. I must say they keep it tucked in rather well.
And don’t think for a minute you can play poker with these guys. They have been around for at least six thousand years and they know every game that ever was. They are so much smarter than human beings are it isn’t funny. They can make us think anything. But if you’re willing, you can shield yourself from their trickery only one way- by a close, transforming, obedient, loving, thankful relationship with God in Christ. Their game is simple. They want you to think one of two things. They don’t need both- they will settle for one or the other. If they can get you to agree with them that 1. God is not quite as good as He says He is, or 2. Sin is not quite as bad as God says it is- they have you hooked. And they will use you to hook others. And once they have you, they do not let go easily. They’re not nice when they sense you are not their plaything anymore. That’s why witchcraft is prohibited by God. It’s not because God hates people who like to experiment with the unknown. It’s because as a loving parent, God wants to protect us, and He wants to remove any obstacle to saving us for happiness forever.
There are only two types of spirits that can communicate with humans. One is the Holy Spirit, or godly angels, the other is angels who at the beginning joined Satan’s rebellion- fallen angels, otherwise called “demons.†Demons do not always lie- sometimes they tell the truth, or part-truth. But they have an agenda. Their agenda is to make sure that you are not resurrected when Jesus comes, but 1000 years later. They don’t want you to go to heaven, or live for eternity on the earth made new, or fly to distant galaxies to tell the unfallen inhabitants of other worlds first hand what it was like to be saved from sin by God’s grace. No, they want you to go where they are going. The main reason is that they have lost their place in heaven permanently. Unlike us, they have no Savior and no chance at redemption. Their days are numbered, and they know they are going to face some ugly music at the end. To top it off, those of us who are saved will take their places in heaven. This is more than the petty jealousy of a jilted lover- this is a big time loss for them and the fiery hot, intense resentment and hatred the fallen angels have for human beings is unimaginable. I must say they keep it tucked in rather well.
And don’t think for a minute you can play poker with these guys. They have been around for at least six thousand years and they know every game that ever was. They are so much smarter than human beings are it isn’t funny. They can make us think anything. But if you’re willing, you can shield yourself from their trickery only one way- by a close, transforming, obedient, loving, thankful relationship with God in Christ. Their game is simple. They want you to think one of two things. They don’t need both- they will settle for one or the other. If they can get you to agree with them that 1. God is not quite as good as He says He is, or 2. Sin is not quite as bad as God says it is- they have you hooked. And they will use you to hook others. And once they have you, they do not let go easily. They’re not nice when they sense you are not their plaything anymore. That’s why witchcraft is prohibited by God. It’s not because God hates people who like to experiment with the unknown. It’s because as a loving parent, God wants to protect us, and He wants to remove any obstacle to saving us for happiness forever.
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
I have never met a demon who I wasnt a good bit smarter then.
I also have it on pretty good authority that god isnt much of a dice player so if it comes down to it, I think that Ill take him to the craps table.
loving parents dont send their children to hell.
I also have it on pretty good authority that god isnt much of a dice player so if it comes down to it, I think that Ill take him to the craps table.
loving parents dont send their children to hell.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
beyelzu wrote: I have never met a demon who I wasnt a good bit smarter then.Demons know how to spell (they cast spells all the time).
beyelzu wrote: I also have it on pretty good authority that god isnt much of a dice player so if it comes down to it, I think that Ill take him to the craps table.Yeah, Dice games are boring when you always know what number will come up.
beyelzu wrote: loving parents dont send their children to hell.Did I say God would send His children to hell?
beyelzu wrote: I also have it on pretty good authority that god isnt much of a dice player so if it comes down to it, I think that Ill take him to the craps table.Yeah, Dice games are boring when you always know what number will come up.
beyelzu wrote: loving parents dont send their children to hell.Did I say God would send His children to hell?
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
It took me a while to respond because there was a lot to read. I had a hard time reading your explanation, tela. It bordered on a fantasy novel for me. And I still don't think you answered my comments with any kind of contradiction. Because the bible says or doesn't say is, despite what you may feel, not the final word on the subject.
If there is no immortal soul, how do we go to heaven? Of course the body dies and of course consciousness dies as it is attached to the body in the form of ego. Those things may die and yet the soul continue. Of course Jesus (by any name) will return in another form. The old one died.
This is still reincarnation. That you claim it only happens to one person does not change what it is. That the good will be saved and the bad only temporarily resurrected to see that they themselves are not saved supports the theory of a soul that does not die.
That there are no records of magic outside of Christ does not refute what I said. I said the religion calls it a miracle when a Christian performs an mystical feat (like prophecy or healing) and witchcraft when the performer is non Christian. History will show me correct.
If there is no immortal soul, how do we go to heaven? Of course the body dies and of course consciousness dies as it is attached to the body in the form of ego. Those things may die and yet the soul continue. Of course Jesus (by any name) will return in another form. The old one died.
This is still reincarnation. That you claim it only happens to one person does not change what it is. That the good will be saved and the bad only temporarily resurrected to see that they themselves are not saved supports the theory of a soul that does not die.
That there are no records of magic outside of Christ does not refute what I said. I said the religion calls it a miracle when a Christian performs an mystical feat (like prophecy or healing) and witchcraft when the performer is non Christian. History will show me correct.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan :-6
Sounds like a fantasy! I think that is an understatement. The whole issue in the Bible is basically midrash and metaphor. That is the only language that we have to speak of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Sounds like a fantasy! I think that is an understatement. The whole issue in the Bible is basically midrash and metaphor. That is the only language that we have to speak of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote: If there is no immortal soul, how do we go to heaven? According to God’s word, Immortality is a gift. If we already had it, it wouldn’t be a gift. I believe I have immortality in Christ. But it’s like being a citizen of a perpetually prosperous nation (like no nation on earth) that guarantees every one of it’s citizens a generous retirement at age 65. If you are born in that country, from infancy you have that retirement- it’s yours. But you won’t lay your hands on the money until you’re 65. Bad illustration, because you might die before age 65. But what if you were a citizen of a country that could guarantee eternal life? The moment you were born a citizen of that country you have eternal life- it’s yours. But in the case of this particular country, I don’t lay my hands on eternal life until the second coming of Jesus. You see, I have dual citizenship. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.â€Â
koan wrote: Of course Jesus (by any name) will return in another form. The old one died.The body of Christ that Mary birthed, and that was crucified on the cross did indeed die. They laid it in a tomb, which I have visited (the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem). The tomb is empty. Jesus was crucified on a Friday. He rested in death in the tomb on the Sabbath. Early Sunday morning, Jesus’ body was revived, and He awoke. An angel rolled the stone away and the Roman soldiers scattered. He appeared to the disciples on a number of occasions over a two or three week period. Then, in full sight of the disciples, Jesus lifted off the ground, rose up through the clouds and disappeared into the sky. The disciples heard angels tell them "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
koan wrote: This is still reincarnation. That you claim it only happens to one person does not change what it is. That the good will be saved and the bad only temporarily resurrected to see that they themselves are not saved supports the theory of a soul that does not die.Not exactly. Again I don’t know about the supposed mechanics of reincarnation, but I can tell you there is a distinct difference in the religious philosophy behind reincarnation and that of resurrection. When people think of reincarnation, they think of something unbiblically metaphysical but natural and automatic that would happen to anybody, independent of God. Resurrection is a prophetic, sovereign and divine act of God. It is the restoration of life by the will and decision of the Life Giver. And rather than support the idea of unconditional human immortality, it says the exact opposite- that immortality is something we do not have in and of ourselves that is conditional upon salvation. Revelation describes the final death of the lost as the second death after which there will be no resurrection.
Most Christian churches have an unconditional immortality concept, that was imported into Christianity by syncretism with paganism and Greek philosophy and that is foreign to the Bible. That’s where the heresy of an eternal, burning hell for lost sinners came from. If the lost had an indestructible eternal life, what could God do with them? He’d have to stick them somewhere forever. Someone misinterpreted some Scripture describing the final destruction of the lost, as if it were some continual burning and suffering state forever. That’s heresy and error and a purely Satanic lie about God, which has created more atheists and God-haters than any other false doctrine. The Bible does not support the unconditional immortality of the human soul.
koan wrote: That there are no records of magic outside of Christ does not refute what I said. I said the religion calls it a miracle when a Christian performs an mystical feat (like prophecy or healing) and witchcraft when the performer is non Christian. History will show me correct.There’s lots of history of magic outside of Christ not only in history and supermarket tabloids, but also in the Bible. History and the Bible record that the Jews stoned spirit mediums. Roman Catholics burned them. Colonial American Protestants drowned them. (I would certainly have been burned, myself). Christ and His disciples tried to persuade magicians, witches and spirit mediums to stop. If they wouldn’t, He left them alone, but He never stopped loving them and hoping that His beautiful teachings would win their hearts and lead them to repentance and salvation. But you can’t force people to do what is best for them.
koan wrote: Of course Jesus (by any name) will return in another form. The old one died.The body of Christ that Mary birthed, and that was crucified on the cross did indeed die. They laid it in a tomb, which I have visited (the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem). The tomb is empty. Jesus was crucified on a Friday. He rested in death in the tomb on the Sabbath. Early Sunday morning, Jesus’ body was revived, and He awoke. An angel rolled the stone away and the Roman soldiers scattered. He appeared to the disciples on a number of occasions over a two or three week period. Then, in full sight of the disciples, Jesus lifted off the ground, rose up through the clouds and disappeared into the sky. The disciples heard angels tell them "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
koan wrote: This is still reincarnation. That you claim it only happens to one person does not change what it is. That the good will be saved and the bad only temporarily resurrected to see that they themselves are not saved supports the theory of a soul that does not die.Not exactly. Again I don’t know about the supposed mechanics of reincarnation, but I can tell you there is a distinct difference in the religious philosophy behind reincarnation and that of resurrection. When people think of reincarnation, they think of something unbiblically metaphysical but natural and automatic that would happen to anybody, independent of God. Resurrection is a prophetic, sovereign and divine act of God. It is the restoration of life by the will and decision of the Life Giver. And rather than support the idea of unconditional human immortality, it says the exact opposite- that immortality is something we do not have in and of ourselves that is conditional upon salvation. Revelation describes the final death of the lost as the second death after which there will be no resurrection.
Most Christian churches have an unconditional immortality concept, that was imported into Christianity by syncretism with paganism and Greek philosophy and that is foreign to the Bible. That’s where the heresy of an eternal, burning hell for lost sinners came from. If the lost had an indestructible eternal life, what could God do with them? He’d have to stick them somewhere forever. Someone misinterpreted some Scripture describing the final destruction of the lost, as if it were some continual burning and suffering state forever. That’s heresy and error and a purely Satanic lie about God, which has created more atheists and God-haters than any other false doctrine. The Bible does not support the unconditional immortality of the human soul.
koan wrote: That there are no records of magic outside of Christ does not refute what I said. I said the religion calls it a miracle when a Christian performs an mystical feat (like prophecy or healing) and witchcraft when the performer is non Christian. History will show me correct.There’s lots of history of magic outside of Christ not only in history and supermarket tabloids, but also in the Bible. History and the Bible record that the Jews stoned spirit mediums. Roman Catholics burned them. Colonial American Protestants drowned them. (I would certainly have been burned, myself). Christ and His disciples tried to persuade magicians, witches and spirit mediums to stop. If they wouldn’t, He left them alone, but He never stopped loving them and hoping that His beautiful teachings would win their hearts and lead them to repentance and salvation. But you can’t force people to do what is best for them.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ted wrote: koan :-6
Sounds like a fantasy! I think that is an understatement. The whole issue in the Bible is basically midrash and metaphor. That is the only language that we have to speak of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted :-6Evidently you don't believe God is a real person. You don't talk to your barber through midrash and metaphor (your tax accountant, perhaps, but not your barber
)
Sounds like a fantasy! I think that is an understatement. The whole issue in the Bible is basically midrash and metaphor. That is the only language that we have to speak of the Divine.
Shalom
Ted :-6Evidently you don't believe God is a real person. You don't talk to your barber through midrash and metaphor (your tax accountant, perhaps, but not your barber
)Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan :-6
God is a very difficult concept to articulate. It is impossible to describe or define the Divine in our very human and limited terms. We can only resort to metaphor. We have no other language that would even come close to describing or defining God.
I like the theologians words or the Biblical words that are used; "God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being." Written by Paul. Another good phrase is God is "The source and ground of our being".
No I do not believe God is a person. When the Bible says we are made in his image it is talking about our very natures not that we have two arms, legs etc.
God is in all and all is in God and yet we accept that God is even greater then that.
Just so in the ancient times the writers could only use the language they had in trying to come to grips with the Divine. Though their language was primitive and not up to the task neither is ours.
Shalom
Ted :-6
God is a very difficult concept to articulate. It is impossible to describe or define the Divine in our very human and limited terms. We can only resort to metaphor. We have no other language that would even come close to describing or defining God.
I like the theologians words or the Biblical words that are used; "God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being." Written by Paul. Another good phrase is God is "The source and ground of our being".
No I do not believe God is a person. When the Bible says we are made in his image it is talking about our very natures not that we have two arms, legs etc.
God is in all and all is in God and yet we accept that God is even greater then that.
Just so in the ancient times the writers could only use the language they had in trying to come to grips with the Divine. Though their language was primitive and not up to the task neither is ours.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Ted wrote: koan :-6
God is a very difficult concept to articulate. It is impossible to describe or define the Divine in our very human and limited terms. We can only resort to metaphor. We have no other language that would even come close to describing or defining God.
I like the theologians words or the Biblical words that are used; "God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being." Written by Paul. Another good phrase is God is "The source and ground of our being".
No I do not believe God is a person. When the Bible says we are made in his image it is talking about our very natures not that we have two arms, legs etc.
God is in all and all is in God and yet we accept that God is even greater then that.
Just so in the ancient times the writers could only use the language they had in trying to come to grips with the Divine. Though their language was primitive and not up to the task neither is ours.
Shalom
Ted :-6
So my idea of saying my higher power is named "Gracie"
is OK. I can't say "God"/ The God you speak of put me through 9 years of physical and 5 years of sexual abuse. My Grandpa told me every Sunday that girls were born sinful = quoted the Bible he did - and had to have that sin beat out of them. He told me I'd never marry unless I was servitude to a man.
I've been waiting for you Ted - justify my upbringing
God is a very difficult concept to articulate. It is impossible to describe or define the Divine in our very human and limited terms. We can only resort to metaphor. We have no other language that would even come close to describing or defining God.
I like the theologians words or the Biblical words that are used; "God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being." Written by Paul. Another good phrase is God is "The source and ground of our being".
No I do not believe God is a person. When the Bible says we are made in his image it is talking about our very natures not that we have two arms, legs etc.
God is in all and all is in God and yet we accept that God is even greater then that.
Just so in the ancient times the writers could only use the language they had in trying to come to grips with the Divine. Though their language was primitive and not up to the task neither is ours.
Shalom
Ted :-6
So my idea of saying my higher power is named "Gracie"
is OK. I can't say "God"/ The God you speak of put me through 9 years of physical and 5 years of sexual abuse. My Grandpa told me every Sunday that girls were born sinful = quoted the Bible he did - and had to have that sin beat out of them. He told me I'd never marry unless I was servitude to a man.
I've been waiting for you Ted - justify my upbringing
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
nvalleyvee :-6
I am terribly sorry to hear of that background. It is not from God by any name. There is no truth in what you were told. Unfortunately many folks used to think like that. It is the result of St. Augustines redemption-fall theology which is no longer accepted by most up to date churches. Augustine was wrong and the church followed him.
God has a thousand names and ultimately remains unnamed because we do not know His/Her name: God, Yahweh, Elohim, the Creator, Allah, Vishnu and "Gracie" if that is what you wish to call God. God will know. You needn't worry.
May God "Gracie" bless you and may you find the peace you seek.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I am terribly sorry to hear of that background. It is not from God by any name. There is no truth in what you were told. Unfortunately many folks used to think like that. It is the result of St. Augustines redemption-fall theology which is no longer accepted by most up to date churches. Augustine was wrong and the church followed him.
God has a thousand names and ultimately remains unnamed because we do not know His/Her name: God, Yahweh, Elohim, the Creator, Allah, Vishnu and "Gracie" if that is what you wish to call God. God will know. You needn't worry.
May God "Gracie" bless you and may you find the peace you seek.
Shalom
Ted :-6
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
Been a little busy trying to remove dirt that someone tried to sweep under the carpets. (another story)
Oh, here's some more.
telaquapacky wrote: According to God’s word, Immortality is a gift. If we already had it, it wouldn’t be a gift. I believe I have immortality in Christ...
You see, I have dual citizenship. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.â€Â
Now, tela, I admire your ability to tell a story and think you've had some amazing experiences. That being said...Immortality, if a gift, is a gift for all. Or it is a gift for no one. According to God's word as you interpret it you have special rights because of your beliefs. Your religious snobbery does not, I am sure, extend to how God feels about the matter (according to my interpretation).
The body of Christ that Mary birthed, and that was crucified on the cross did indeed die. They laid it in a tomb, which I have visited (the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem). The tomb is empty. Jesus was crucified on a Friday. He rested in death in the tomb on the Sabbath. Early Sunday morning, Jesus’ body was revived, and He awoke. An angel rolled the stone away and the Roman soldiers scattered. He appeared to the disciples on a number of occasions over a two or three week period. Then, in full sight of the disciples, Jesus lifted off the ground, rose up through the clouds and disappeared into the sky. The disciples heard angels tell them "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
So we agree. The body that Christ was in is destroyed. He will require a new one. If you are suggesting that coming back in "the same way" means that he will look exactly the same...let the echoes of my laughter not haunt you. I can think of half a dozen explanations, equally good, as to what that might have meant.
Again I don’t know about the supposed mechanics of reincarnation, but I can tell you there is a distinct difference in the religious philosophy behind reincarnation and that of resurrection.
I think you ought to just stick to the first part of that statement. It is impossible to tell me there is a distinct difference if you do not understand one half of the equation.
There’s lots of history of magic outside of Christ not only in history and supermarket tabloids, but also in the Bible. History and the Bible record that the Jews stoned spirit mediums. Roman Catholics burned them. Colonial American Protestants drowned them. (I would certainly have been burned, myself). Christ and His disciples tried to persuade magicians, witches and spirit mediums to stop. If they wouldn’t, He left them alone, but He never stopped loving them and hoping that His beautiful teachings would win their hearts and lead them to repentance and salvation. But you can’t force people to do what is best for them.
Ahem. You perpetuate the hypocracy. Let all the non Christians who perform "miracles" repent? If only they knew being Christian witches would make them a saint. Silly folk.
You STILL do not refute what I have said.
Oh, here's some more.
telaquapacky wrote: According to God’s word, Immortality is a gift. If we already had it, it wouldn’t be a gift. I believe I have immortality in Christ...
You see, I have dual citizenship. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.â€Â
Now, tela, I admire your ability to tell a story and think you've had some amazing experiences. That being said...Immortality, if a gift, is a gift for all. Or it is a gift for no one. According to God's word as you interpret it you have special rights because of your beliefs. Your religious snobbery does not, I am sure, extend to how God feels about the matter (according to my interpretation).
The body of Christ that Mary birthed, and that was crucified on the cross did indeed die. They laid it in a tomb, which I have visited (the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem). The tomb is empty. Jesus was crucified on a Friday. He rested in death in the tomb on the Sabbath. Early Sunday morning, Jesus’ body was revived, and He awoke. An angel rolled the stone away and the Roman soldiers scattered. He appeared to the disciples on a number of occasions over a two or three week period. Then, in full sight of the disciples, Jesus lifted off the ground, rose up through the clouds and disappeared into the sky. The disciples heard angels tell them "Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
So we agree. The body that Christ was in is destroyed. He will require a new one. If you are suggesting that coming back in "the same way" means that he will look exactly the same...let the echoes of my laughter not haunt you. I can think of half a dozen explanations, equally good, as to what that might have meant.
Again I don’t know about the supposed mechanics of reincarnation, but I can tell you there is a distinct difference in the religious philosophy behind reincarnation and that of resurrection.
I think you ought to just stick to the first part of that statement. It is impossible to tell me there is a distinct difference if you do not understand one half of the equation.
There’s lots of history of magic outside of Christ not only in history and supermarket tabloids, but also in the Bible. History and the Bible record that the Jews stoned spirit mediums. Roman Catholics burned them. Colonial American Protestants drowned them. (I would certainly have been burned, myself). Christ and His disciples tried to persuade magicians, witches and spirit mediums to stop. If they wouldn’t, He left them alone, but He never stopped loving them and hoping that His beautiful teachings would win their hearts and lead them to repentance and salvation. But you can’t force people to do what is best for them.
Ahem. You perpetuate the hypocracy. Let all the non Christians who perform "miracles" repent? If only they knew being Christian witches would make them a saint. Silly folk.
You STILL do not refute what I have said.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
nvalleyvee wrote: So my idea of saying my higher power is named "Gracie"
is OK. I can't say "God"/ The God you speak of put me through 9 years of physical and 5 years of sexual abuse. My Grandpa told me every Sunday that girls were born sinful = quoted the Bible he did - and had to have that sin beat out of them. He told me I'd never marry unless I was servitude to a man.
I've been waiting for you Ted - justify my upbringing
Religion is has often been used to justify horrendous behaviour. That is why I shy from, and at times abhor, organized religion. At the same time, I don't want to blame the religion instead of the perpetrator. I feel the same about music and television/film when they are blamed for violence perpetrated by sick individuals looking for an excuse. It was the most convenient excuse. The sickness is in the mind looking for the justification to do what s/he knows is wrong. Also at the same time, I wouldn't blame you for hating the religion that was used to justify your abuse. In this case, it is a common excuse allowing criminals to justify themselves.
Me, I blame the people who hurt me. I've heard all their excuses and, in the end, found that they are just sick f***s. One excuse is just as poor as another.
is OK. I can't say "God"/ The God you speak of put me through 9 years of physical and 5 years of sexual abuse. My Grandpa told me every Sunday that girls were born sinful = quoted the Bible he did - and had to have that sin beat out of them. He told me I'd never marry unless I was servitude to a man.
I've been waiting for you Ted - justify my upbringing
Religion is has often been used to justify horrendous behaviour. That is why I shy from, and at times abhor, organized religion. At the same time, I don't want to blame the religion instead of the perpetrator. I feel the same about music and television/film when they are blamed for violence perpetrated by sick individuals looking for an excuse. It was the most convenient excuse. The sickness is in the mind looking for the justification to do what s/he knows is wrong. Also at the same time, I wouldn't blame you for hating the religion that was used to justify your abuse. In this case, it is a common excuse allowing criminals to justify themselves.
Me, I blame the people who hurt me. I've heard all their excuses and, in the end, found that they are just sick f***s. One excuse is just as poor as another.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
nvalleyvee wrote: So my idea of saying my higher power is named "Gracie"
is OK. I can't say "God"/ The God you speak of put me through 9 years of physical and 5 years of sexual abuse. My Grandpa told me every Sunday that girls were born sinful = quoted the Bible he did - and had to have that sin beat out of them. He told me I'd never marry unless I was servitude to a man.
... justify my upbringingYour testimony is heartbreaking and oh-so-true! This is exactly what I have been talking about. Your Grandpa chose what out of the Bible to obey and what to disobey, what to believe and what not to. He chose to say girls were sinful. He ignored that we all are sinful and need God’s grace to transform us into the loving likeness of Christ. He chose to say women should submit to their husbands. He forgot that husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church and died for us (which is anything but forcing them into servitude!).
Your Grandpa took the parts of the Bible that sounded good or realistic to him to try to justify his perversion, and rejected the other parts. He was wrong because he did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God, but tried to take the place of God himself. There is no justification for that. I hope you are healing, and I hope you don’t hold against God or His Word what happened to you. Then Satan would have got what he was after.
is OK. I can't say "God"/ The God you speak of put me through 9 years of physical and 5 years of sexual abuse. My Grandpa told me every Sunday that girls were born sinful = quoted the Bible he did - and had to have that sin beat out of them. He told me I'd never marry unless I was servitude to a man.
... justify my upbringingYour testimony is heartbreaking and oh-so-true! This is exactly what I have been talking about. Your Grandpa chose what out of the Bible to obey and what to disobey, what to believe and what not to. He chose to say girls were sinful. He ignored that we all are sinful and need God’s grace to transform us into the loving likeness of Christ. He chose to say women should submit to their husbands. He forgot that husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church and died for us (which is anything but forcing them into servitude!).
Your Grandpa took the parts of the Bible that sounded good or realistic to him to try to justify his perversion, and rejected the other parts. He was wrong because he did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God, but tried to take the place of God himself. There is no justification for that. I hope you are healing, and I hope you don’t hold against God or His Word what happened to you. Then Satan would have got what he was after.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
koan wrote:
You STILL do not refute what I have said. Pow! Yack! Got me! That echoey laughter!! I can't stand it! Yaaaah!
You STILL do not refute what I have said. Pow! Yack! Got me! That echoey laughter!! I can't stand it! Yaaaah!
Look what the cat dragged in.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
telaquapacky wrote: Pow! Yack! Got me! That echoey laughter!! I can't stand it! Yaaaah!
I said don't let it haunt you. You've been speaking down, IMO, to everyone who interpretes the bible differently from you since this thread began. I don't think you've taken to well to receiving what you've been giving out.
I said don't let it haunt you. You've been speaking down, IMO, to everyone who interpretes the bible differently from you since this thread began. I don't think you've taken to well to receiving what you've been giving out.
What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?
I noticed a very small but important mistake in an earlier post of mine concerning a sermon that had been preached. I indicated that he spoke on the exclusivity of Christianity and that is incorrect. I turned the two words around. He spoke on the fact that Christianity is an inclusive religious faith and not an exclusive one.
Thirty lashes with a wet noodle.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Thirty lashes with a wet noodle.
Shalom
Ted :-6