Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church?
Source:
creation.com
URL Source: http://creation.com/my-pastor-doesnt-believe-in-genesis
Published: Nov 15, 2014
Author: creation.com
Post Date: 2014-11-15 19:23:45 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 78662
Comments: 223
My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church? Published: 15 November 2014 (GMT+10) We received the following question from a supporter in Australia who was surprised to discover the pastors of his church did not believe Genesis. Tas Walker talks about some of the issues that need to be considered. "Hi guys, I love your work, and have subscribed to the magazine and am continually encouraged by what you guys publish". "I have a question. I’m at a church which I’ve attended for the last 12 years (I’m now 30). I’ve since realized that none of the 3 pastors take a straightforward reading of Genesis, and at least 2 of the 3 (haven’t yet checked the 3rd) don’t even believe the Flood was global. I was wondering if you had some advice on what I should do about this. I have 2 kids and 1 on the way and I want them growing up in a biblically sound church. Apart from Genesis our church is excellent. Do you think leaving the church is too drastic? Love to get your feedback, thanks heaps"! Tas Walker replies: Thank you for your question about being part of a church where the pastors do not accept Genesis as written. Unfortunately that is more common these days than it should be. The decision as to which church you and your family should belong to depends on many different factors. Here are some issues for you to think and pray about. There is no such thing as a perfect church. In some areas the church may be really good for you but in others it may be totally unhelpful. So you have to balance a lot of factors in your life. There are usually good reasons in your life why you belong to the church you do, but churches change with time. E.g. sometimes the youth ministry is strong and other times it struggles. Your pastoral team will change and that will bring a different dynamic. So, perhaps by waiting you may see things improve. Church is not just about what you can get out of it, but it is a place where you can minister to others with your gifts. Your passion and experience with creation may be one area where you can be a blessing to others. In every church you will have to stand for and speak out the truth, and this can apply to many different issues. In this particular church the issue that you need to bring to others is the truth and foundation of Genesis. But speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. Look at this as an opportunity to share some wonderful truth that otherwise would not be shared. Rather than pushing creation in six days on people as if it is your hobby horse, use it to meet their needs as you become aware of them. Thus, you can present the truth to people along the following lines: “You may find this will help resolve some of your doubts and give you a firm foundation as you follow Christ.” I always take back issues of Creation magazine to church, as well as brochures and DVDs, which I freely give to people as the need arises. Speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. You may be influential in the thinking and life of your pastors. It’s important to love them and support them. Don’t be divisive or argumentative. Don’t be a one-issue person but show that you are interested in the wider ministry of the church and that your passion is to serve Jesus Christ and to help others come to Him and grow in Him. Here are two examples of how a person in the pews was pivotal in helping their minister come to the truth of Genesis: A young man in a church lent a book to his minister who was big enough to read the book and research the issue and who changed his mind (see Esa Hukkinen interview). This pastor, Owen Butt, believed Genesis was myth but changed his mind after attending a creation meeting, and that changed his whole approach to ministry. What this article does not say is that it was one of his congregation who fed him information and invited him to the creation meeting, where his whole way of thinking was changed (See Catching the vision). Make sure that your family is properly instructed in the truth of Genesis and creation by providing books, DVDs and other resources for them. Talk about the question and issues as they arise. However, note that it is really important to always speak in a positive way about your pastors and your church, especially with your children. If there is a critical spirit and an undermining of your pastors and your church in your home, that will poison things for your children. If the situation becomes very difficult for you, with say the pastors instructing you not to talk about the issue you may need to think about moving. In the same way, you could not accept a ministry offer from the pastors if they included a condition that you could not talk about creation in that ministry or in the church. So if there is a hardening and aggressiveness develops toward your position, say from the pulpit, you may need to think about moving. In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5 God bless, Tas Walker
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what?
The article's title is simple to answer. Ask the pastor if he supports homosexual 'marriage.' Ask the pastor if he supports human life beginning at conception. Ask the pastor if he supports church members divorcing and remarriage and remaining in the assembly. Ask the pastor if he believes God through Moses literally parted the Red Sea; if God through Joshua made the walls of Jericho collapse. (If they answer all of the above affirmatively, then ask why not believe Genesis is literally true) If they have problems answering the above questions find another assembly. If the pastor happens to be a woman, then you don't even have to ask the questions, leave immediately.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I concur with all of your litmus test (but conditionally on one): Ask the pastor if he supports church members divorcing and remarriage and remaining in the assembly. Sometimes "Condition: RED" can't be helped. Condoning divorce is one thing; however what's done is done in some cases. I don't know if shunning in that case makes sense to me for a hungry, repentant believer.
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5 Like it.
There is an answer to your question, and I am willing to answer it for you. There is a completely different way to read the Bible. The traditional way, which came out of traditional Catholic and Orthodox thinking, itself came out of traditional Jewish thinking. After all, all 12 Apostles and Paul were Middle Eastern Jews, from the land of Israel and its environs, by birth and culture. Jesus was too, of course, but he is different because of who his Father was and the special knowledge and power he had. The traditional way of seeing it saw the Christian Church as the continuation of the Jewish revelation. While this is certainly true, the key features of it where that the Apostles and the traditionalists did not simply valorize the revelations of God, but also the particular historical and cultural achievements of Israel. They understood God's plan of salvation in a certain way. To follow the traditional thread of thinking, God made man, man fell, and this fall, this original sin, left an imprint of sin on the character of each man. Because of this sin, man could not attain heaven after death. In order to save man, eventually, God chose one people, the Hebrews, and gave them The Law. The Jews waxed and waned, and did not follow the law perfectly. So God sent Jesus to bring the whole world into salvation. Under the Jewish law, the blood of animals released sin, but could not completely release a man of all of his sins. But with Jesus, baptism wipes away original sin, and the blood of Christ's sacrifice is the final, perfect lamb of the Jewish sacrificial cycle, which takes away the sins of the whole world (and not just the Jews). So, through adoption, the world are all Messianic Jews. The reason for Jesus, under the traditional view, is to redeem us from our sins as laid out under the Jewish law. The assumption is that a perfect adherence to the Jewish Law would have led to salvation, but nobody could do it, and so Jesus was sent to do it for everybody. That's the traditional view, and that view depends on the existence of Adam and Eve as literally described in order to establish the Original Sin that needs to be wiped away. That's the traditional read and understanding. It's what Paul understood he was doing. There is a very different way to read the same text. It too arrives at the necessity of Jesus, doing what Jesus did, with the ultimate net result, but which understands what happened along the way, and the role of the Jews in it, very differently. It takes some time to write out, and engenders tremendous hostility among those who see things through the traditional lens, so I'm not too terrible eager to spend the time to write it out and then get beaten upon. Unfortunately the beatings will happen, because writing out what others believe without criticizing it leaves the impression that one advocates that, because people become furious at anything they perceive as a challenge to their traditional beliefs. If you really want to understand how people of good faith and sincerity can think Jesus is vital to salvation without accepting the Adam and Eve or Flood stories as literal, I am willing to go ahead and write it out. But I'm not too eager to deal myself a crap sandwich, and that's what experience tells me I'm going to get if I start actually talking about these things. So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?
YES! Questions to ask pastors: www.christianpatriot.com/08_17_2005.htm
Sure go for it. You are a man of honor. But if there was no Adam and Eve to bring sin into the world. What exactly would be the purpose of Jesus if Adam and Eve were made up. I know it is repetitive of the above.
How many other things can we see in the Holy Bible with "different" eyes and still believe in the truthfulness of the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Bible isn't open to one's personal interpretation.
Amen. Churches are of men not God.
Great link brother. I still use that link and share with others.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
The more relevant question IMO is what is the reason for Genesis? Why did God create Man to begin with, especially if God is all knowing and knew beforehand that He would have to send His Son to be killed at the hands of Man to bring Man back into His graces? There is a difference between belief and faith. There was a whole thread on LP dedicated to just Genesis. There were a few very well educated on Scriptures posting on that thread. Bottom line, it resolved nothing. Either one has faith or one doesn't. Choosing the flavor of one's religion or church is almost irrelevant. One can make a good argument that churches are divisive not unifying institutions among the faithful. This has the making to be an interesting thread but in the end it will not change anyone's mind or resolve the question.
Come on, Bro, bring it. If I recall correctly some people disgreed with you on LP on the Just Genesis thread but no-one ripped your head off. You made very interesting and articulate points, well worth revisiting here. Besides, this is LF not LP {says Same Old Same Old}.
Oh? Sez who? Please post the one and only authoritative (or is that authoritive) version of the Holy Bible in which all of the faithful MUST believe as the literal representation of historic events that occured prior to any written language. You have several to choose from so please take your time.
Good to see you Bob, how are things going with your treatments?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Some translations are easy to know as bad. Exact translations from original sources are good. I like King James, American Standard, and the revisions of them. I am sure there are others. Are there any that you like?
They are all about the same to me and more or less equally flawed in one way or the other. None represent the Word of God as claimed by each proponant of their claim of being the one and only true representation of the Word of God.
Why did God create Man to begin with, especially if God is all knowing and knew beforehand that He would have to send His Son to be killed at the hands of Man to bring Man back into His graces? The reason for Genesis is exactly that; A brief explanation of The Beginning. As to your other questions, some things will have to remain a mystery in this mortal life. Unless you believe man in his never-ending vanity and arrogance is simply entitled to OR capable of knowing the Game Plan of The Almighty. One can make a good argument that churches are divisive not unifying institutions among the faithful. May be the case at your church. It has been MY observation that heathens, narcissists, atheists, and Muslims are THE most divisive forces on the planet. Do you refute my contention?
The how is explained but not the why. "As to your other questions, some things will have to remain a mystery in this mortal life. I totally concur. Mortal Man can never undrestand the Mind of God, much less the nature of the Infinite. That is why every version, every interpretation of the Bible is flawed. The very essence of language is a man made concept. God doesn't need language. In fact if you liereally believe the Bible, God created different languages to confound Man long before any Christian Bible was ever put into writting. "It has been MY observation that heathens, narcissists, atheists, and Muslims are THE most divisive forces on the planet. Do you refute my contention? " Yes, I do with respect to heathen and atheists, and perhaps narcissists that recognize that there is something greater than themself. I agree with respect to Islam.
On board. That is why every version, every interpretation of the Bible is flawed. Flawed or misinterpreted? OR, misunderstood within the tapestry of scripture? The very essence of language is a man made concept. God doesn't need language. God downloaded language and understanding of it into our DNA and hardrive. Scripture as told/written to man was exactly the way God wanted it articulated. If our heart hardens and our vanity tried to reinterpret scripture as we please, we lose its essential meaning as intended. You may not agree with my assessment -- I understand and accept that. Yes, I do with respect to heathen and atheists, and perhaps narcissists that recognize that there is something greater than themself. I agree with respect to Islam. See? We're not as far apart as it may seem. There's always bound to be quibbling on this entire subject.
Bob, yes, how are you doing? Still battling with all ya got, brutha?
Why? God is Love my friend. 1 John 4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Sure go for it. You are a man of honor. But if there was no Adam and Eve to bring sin into the world. What exactly would be the purpose of Jesus if Adam and Eve were made up. I know it is repetitive of the above. Your question, and Don's, and SOSO's comment to me... I'm going to take the time to write a careful, comprehensive and clear answer.
Thank you Sir, Rat poison is 99.9% good food, but that .1% kills the rat every time, so it is with watered down versions of the Bible and preaching what God meant to say instead of what He did say. God bless, Bob
Thank you, Seems Christ is going to keep me around a bit longer.
Doing good, Seems the Lord likes using surgeons to get my attention, and it works.
Thanks, I believe that this will be a worhwhile endeavor for the interested. May I suggest two therads be started: Why Genesis? and Just Genesis. The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man, the latter the biblical account of Genesis as historical fact and/or meaning. Obvioulsy both why and how of creation have an impact on how one views and accepts the teachings of the Bible. Frankly I expect that the former thread would have a very short existenace as the bottom line is no-one knows why God rolled up His sleves in a creation mode.
God is Love my friend. 1 John 4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
No doubt in my mind, among other things. But that doesn't explain why He created Man. Did He need someone to love? Did He need someone to love Him? Did He need the physical Universe to play in? Or for His children to play in? Does God need anything?
God created us in His image and likeness. When a man and woman procreate and the child is born do people ask why they wanted a child?
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
When a man and woman procreate and the child is born do people ask why they wanted a child? People are not God. Soylent green is people. BTW, it used to be common to ask why a married couple didn't want children. What does that have to do with God? {You can't ask for a better set-up than that, you Ole Ram.}
You approach this with a hardened heart. Why does an artist paint? They want to create!
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I know why God filled up the sky and the land: because he wanted to. There is nothing more to it than that. God does what he wants. Why do YOU like, say, blue things? Because you do. You prefer it because you prefer it. So it is with God. God is God. He doesn't have a "reason" as such, that "causes" him to "have to" do something or aim at a result. He's God. He does what he does because it pleases him to do so - a painter on a blank canvas.
The more stubborn someone is usually translates into how long we inhabit this world. Had an Aunt that lived to 99, you could have beaten her with a stick and she wouldn't have changed. :)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
There is nothing more to it than that. God does what he wants. Well, OK then. God does as He jolly well pleases and we, His creations, can just run around arguing about not only what He did, or if He did, but why He did. It all makes perfect sense now. God does not need to communicate to us a purpose for our existence, and we shouldn't expect to have one, much less ask Him. Thanks for clearing that up.
I would say more of a Doubting Thomas need. My heart is not hardened towards God. It's my human intellect that is seeking answers, answers to questions that I know are beyond human comprehension. But the questions persist. Even Thomas needed tangible proof. Am I less than Thomas in that regard? "Why does an artist paint? Artists are not God. "They want to create!" So we have a God, Lord of the Infinite, that wants, or needs, to create? Heck, even the artist would not engage in creation if he knew the outcome before he started. That would be kind of redundant, if not anti-climatic.
God walked the Earth among us. Dude what more do you need!
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Well, that is the way it is. God is God. The Scriptures do record what God said - the rules he laid on us (there are not many). He's free, and he made us to rule over this place. And that's the extent of it. That's what we know, and that's all we know. We can just make shit up and ascribe it to God, if we want to, but when we do that, it's not true.
On this I totally agree. But its human nature to inquire, to want to know why. And isn't God that bestowed that nature upon us? At times it seems that He has a cruel sense of humor.
Tangible proof that God exists and who he is exists. That is a very different question than why he does what he does. WHO, and WHETHER, yes, God reveals that. WHY? That's a question whose only answer is: because he wants to. The tangible proof of God exists: God left specific concrete miracles, things that defy the regular laws of nature, as tangible evidence THAT he is. And the content of those miracles shows us WHO he is (and who he isn't). Nothing answers WHY, and he didn't reveal that. Now, when it comes to the tangible proofs of God, this is a science question. Trying to discuss it, in my experience, always turns into a ridiculous scrum of irrational and unscientific conclusions, for obvious reasons: once the proof is admitted, then one finds one's self forced onto a path of further inquiry and admission that limits ones rational freedom of choice. And people don't like that. They resist it for the same reason that smokers have always resisted the idea that it's bad for their health to smoke. Certainly if we want to go the route of Thomas and have the tangible proof, THAT we can have and do have, in spades. But just because we have it doesn't mean that men who don't want there to be such proof will accept it. The proof is not in the form of written words. Words are wind. Rather, the written words give us the backstory of the proofs. The proofs are tangible artifacts left by God. The written words give context to the artifacts, and the artifacts vouch for the written words. In tandem, they give us the skein of proof, history and law. What we choose to do with it then is up to us. Men who don't want there to be a God, or a law, will cross their arms and claim there is no proof. Baghdad Bob said that the Americans weren't in Baghdad too. Denial of reality doesn't change the reality. You spoke of two different threads: What Genesis said, and Why God did all of that. But here, you broached the subject that really is a completely different subject for a thread: the tangible physical proof of God. That's not in Genesis at all. Genesis is words on a page. Actual Thomas-satisfying proof is physical stuff you can touch and examine under a microscope...and when you do, discover that it cannot be under the laws of physics, but nevertheless IS. THAT is proof. Thomas didn't say "I won't believe unless I see", and then, when shown by Christ, say "I still don't believe. You could be a ghost or I might be crazy or hallucinating." The Pharisees were the ones doing that. They saw Jesus heal paralytics and couldn't deny it, so they said "He did it with the power of Satan". The price of accepting the evidence would have meant the overthrow of their religion and the acceptance of a new one, and many men would rather die than do that.
Why do you like girls?
Hey just checked. I have 2 Bozos and rarely posted here in the past. Can you beat that:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind? If so, you can learn much. Or are you a man who has in fact really already made up his mind, are certain that there's no such proof, that such proof cannot really exist, that anything shown as proof can and surely will be exploded by simply applying reason to it? Are you already certain that no satisfactory answers to your questions exist, or ever will exist? In other words, are your questions real questions that are truly searching for something, or are they rhetorical, leading questions whose answers you are already sure you know? The answer to these questions of intent determine whether any conversation is worthwhile. This question is important from the perspective of someone like me, who might or might not be willing to expend the effort to try to answer the questions. I am happy to bring my proofs to a real court, but it's a waste of time, worse than useless, to bring them before a kangaroo court. I've been before many kangaroo courts, and usually see them constituted. And the men who sit on them who sit in pre-judgment of all that would be brought before them are dull and foolish and not worth my time. Men with open minds who believe that maybe the questions CAN be answered, at least somewhat, and who are willing to find out: they are worth the time. Me, personally, I had to start with the tangible proofs of God. Without the proofs, without the knowledge certain THAT God is, I could see no point in investing the time necessary to really try to understand what he had to say or wanted of me. I am a man, and I give other men the courtesy of believing them to be exactly like me: wanting proof. I also give them the courtesy of believing them to be like me in being honest, at least with themselves, and earnestly seeking proof. I believe that any honest, intelligent, scientifically-educated man who studies the tangible proofs God left us will come face to face with the reality of the existence of God. And that changes the nature of scientific inquiry, because it removes many question marks. It makes new questions important, such as: Ok, God IS, but WHO is he? And what does he WANT of me (if anything). The tangible artifacts answer the first question completely. But then the trail goes cold. Then you have only two choices: God tells you directly, or you have to read accounts of other people telling you what God said to them. In the latter case, you have to compare what other men claim God said to them to the physical artifacts. If the claims of men contradict the physical proofs, then you have a choice to make: reject the physical proof that your own eyes can see, or reject the claims of men that contradict them. Me? I follow the second course. Then, if one has found a set of words that one believes contains words from God, one has to read and parse those words carefully, to see what they say and who they claim said what. It's worth the effort if God is, and if God spoke that way. It's an utter waste of time if God isn't. "Just believe that God is and go straight to the text" is an approach that works for some. Some of them are Christians. Some are Jews. Some are Muslims. Some are Hindus. Some are Bhuddists. They all contradict and they all have their books of words in which they believe, without anchoring in tangible proof. But words are wind, and if they don't come from God, they come from man. So I myself, personally, have to start with the tangible proof. Of course, I DIDN'T start with the tangible proof. In point of fact, my starting position was that no such tangible proof could possibly exist. I wasn't a skeptic, I was a cynic. So where I actually started was with revelation: God grabbed my face and threw me around and spoke to me. And showed me things. And visited often. And so did demons. I saw the Dove. I saw the City. I was plunged into the black Abyss. I found these experiences impressive, so I looked for tangible proofs to corroborate that I was in fact speaking with spirits and not just bat-shit crazy. There is a lot of tangible proof left by God, all of it quite astounding and quite impossible. So, God is. All of the tangible proof is Christian in nature. The informational content of the objects and artifacts are miraculous, and they present some Christian fact or simply are of Christians. If there were any counterexamples from any OTHER religion, there would be a competition of ideas, but there aren't. Every miraculous, science-defying artifact is Christian in content - every single one. I've identified about six dozen of them. The other religions have no entries in the game. So, personal revelation is corroborated by miracle, and all of the miracles - all of the cornucopia of artifacts left by God - are Christian in nature. Therefore God is the God of Christ, and all of the other religions are false or incomplete. Therefore there's no point in studying anything but Christianity. But there are 6000 squabbling, irritable Christianities, so maybe the answer is not to study Christianity, but to keep eyes focused on God. Ok, so, the artifacts are Christian miracles from God - where in Christianity does God speak directly? In written Scripture, and in some claimed revelations of saints. Since I've spoken to God, and what God and I spoke of is not Scripture, I know that God certainly DOES speak to people and perform miracles today, and did not stop doing so in the First Century. There's a made up tradition that says the opposite, but words are wind. I've experienced miracles, so arguments that God doesn't do that sort of thing anymore are lies. They're not just errors, because there was no basis for making the error: they are positively asserted lies by men seeking to privilege their particular power, gained by their learning. It would be great for them if God were so easily contained. But he isn't, and he said not to lie, so actually they're in duck soup and considerable danger, because of their own stubborn and foolish insistence on the authority of stories they made up out of wholecloth. Now then, proceeding on, God didn't say much to me, really. Lot's of repetition about specific points. The content of the artifacts says that God is, and Christ is divine. So what can we do? Well, we can look at the words of men who claim God spoke to them - both in the claims of saints since the First Century, and in the canonized claims of those from the First Century and before. And there, we can find a set of words, attributed to God directly, about 8% of Scripture and a few more sentences from claims of saints, embedded in a whole lot more verbiage that may or may not be true. The artifacts vouch for the God speaking in Scripture, so you look at what HE said DIRECTLY, first. Then you compare THOSE words to the rest of the words, and you find conflicts. You don't find conflict between God and himself, but there IS conflict between what God said directly, and what men said ABOUT God, both in Scripture and without. And then you have to make a choice. Well, me? I know God is, because I've spoken to him. And I know there's a Devil too - I've seen a demon. I know who God is from the artifacts. And I know what God said directly because it's recorded. So, THAT'S reliable. And then there's the rest of it. Where is agrees, that's good. Where it conflicts, well, there's a choice to be made, and 100% of the time I go with what God said directly, and I disregard or diminish in importance what some other man wrote that contradicts what God said directly out of his own mouth. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." - Jesus, speaking to Satan. Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole. So, if I've got God saying that he sends good and evil, but I've got some Psalmist saying that God is only good and never does evil, well, the Psalmist is wrong. All Scripture may be God breathed, but it's not all of equal authority. And it's only the fact of the reality of God that gives Scripture authority in the first place. The lack of concrete tangible evidence for the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita leave them unsubstantiated, but when contrasted with the presence of such concrete tangible evidence for the Christian Gospel only, the relative presence and lack of evidence proves the truth of the Christian Gospel and the falsity of the rest. That's how it all hangs together. We can talk about each piece, or not. It depends entirely on the mental attitude of the ones who wish to speak. If there is real interest and an open mind, then good. But if the interlocutor has a closed mind, Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine.
Nobody has bozoed me yet. I hope none do.
I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line. "Seems pretty obvious, when you look at it all as a whole." And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him.
LOL I give it a week:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
LMAO. It must be the Jesuit in you. I don't have any yet. It must be my charming personality. BTW, can you help witless TC to unbunch his panties? Perhaps that will get you off the bozo list.
Well I've been cataloging terrorist Jihadi cells for well over 10 years now. After a few weeks you learn certain inflections and diction and can pin who it is. For you it was too easy. Almost like you wanted to be caught:) Almost as easy as unveiling the difference between a Sadrist cell and Iranian Kuds attack.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Are you calling me a Jihadist? Damn you:
And that is exactly the place to whence I came well over 50 years ago. And I have tested that position over and over and over again with each input of new data or observation or instruction or experience and continue to come to the same point. That is why I still have an unabiding belief in God and not so much for any church or those men that claim to know His mind or speak for Him. Well, then, good! That moves all the freight, and we can come down to the brass tacks. We both know God is. We both know that the Father is God of all, and that Jesus is divine. We both know that Jesus told us that we have to follow him to be acceptable to the Father, and that to follow him we have to do what he said. So, what did he say? Well, we know that there's a cut, a judgment, and that some pass it and enter into the City of God, and others are left outside and/or thrown into the Lake of Fire. We know that within the City there will be different distinctions, greater or lesser, based on what each person did or didn't do in life. Everybody who passes judgment gets a room, but everybody doesn't get a throne and a crown. In this sense it's sort of like high school: those who graduate are going to go on to other things. The ones who did best will have the best colleges and jobs. The ones who did less well will have correspondingly dimmer prospects, but still be better off than the guy dying of malaria in a swamp in Bangladesh. So, the first big cut, the dividing line, is what will cause you to fail judgment and be thrown into the fire. Jesus gave a handy list, twice repeated on the last two pages of the Bible: If you've killed people, committed adultery, or sexual immorality, or been abominable (which includes some other forms of sexual immorality), or been a liar, or an idolator, or a drug trafficker, or a coward, you're not going to pass judgement and are going to be thrown into the lake of fire UNLESS you're forgiven. And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies. But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you. That's what Christ said, and he was the Son of God and the one who has to be followed, so whoever disagrees is wrong and should be silent and change himself to follow Christ. And that is the whole religion, really. That is ultimately what you have to do to pass judgment. Beyond that, to enjoy high status in the City of God, well, for that you have to be an exemplar of Christ's virtues. I think it's important to start with the most basic of basics: be baptized, eat bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, don't commit any of those deadly sins, and if you have, then repent, ask forgiveness, and forgive other men all of their sins against you. That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it.
But what, then, did Christ say you have to do if you've committed any of those sins, to be forgiven them? He gave only one way: you have to forgive the sins and offenses that other men have done to you. That's it. That's all. Nothing more is required, but nothing less will do either. Christ said that if you forgive men their sins against you, God will forgive your sins against him, but that if you don't forgiven other men, then neither will God forgive you. That's the whole thing. The rest is detail and opinion. Not much to it, when you get right down to it. Ah, but we both know that the devil is in the details.....don't we. Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy. BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.
How very well said. Liberals want catch and release hunting, liberals look in the air when they hear "look a dead bird".
Good news, Bob. Been praying for you, brutha.
We are all given a measure of faith. We can squander it or let it grow.
I think more technically correct is that we are all offered a sufficent measure of faith. Some accept it, some do not. And those that do accept it have the free will to squander it. Fortunately for all of us it is a renewable resource:)
Did He need someone to love? Did He need someone to love Him? Did He need the physical Universe to play in? Or for His children to play in? Does God need anything? Again, as a mere mortal, how can THE Plan of the Infinite Almighty God be analyzed for motivation? By mortal standards of reason and rationale no less. We DO know the following: GOD IS LOVE. GOD IS JUST. And GOD HAS A PLAN. The Lord Has given man an inate Free Will with which to seek out and draw closer to Him, stand pat, or fold and completely reject Him. Are you in?
Bingo. All of my questions are about mortal attributes. If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He? And yes, free will is a bitch.
Yes. You've walked into THE Paradox. I realize your questions are more rhetorical in nature, but some folks still somehow expect ANY of your questions about The Almighty's nature to be answered with surety. Free will is a bitch. Can be, can't it? Could also be a blessing. "To be or not to be...."
More like embraced it with eyes wide open.
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
Hmmmmmmm.... A God that has no needs but does have desires. Need to ponder this one.
Yup, I agree. As does Red. He had hardwired us to love from birth. The love He demonstrates thru us here amongst us and through good people is just a taste of the love received while spending Eternity with Him. That love will be immeasurable in His Kingdom.
What does that mean? One foot in, one out?
BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it. "Faith" can mean two things: TRUST in God, or mere BELIEF in God. I went on and on about how one can come to strong BELIEF that God exists: through the physical, examinable artifacts, the concrete miracles left to that purpose. Trust is an entirely different thing, though. After all, the Devil and all the demons KNOW God EXISTS, but they don't obey him. Men certainly can know that God exists. I do in two ways: I've spoken with him, seen angels and demons and places and experienced dramatic physical miracles. There is no question in my mind that God exists. If there WERE a question in my mind, then it would be like questioning whether water exists, or gravity, or daylight. Direct experience is knowledge certain. For the benefit of those who have not seen, touched and heard, I've gone and compiled the list of miracles that God left that can be forensically examined and seen to be physics-breakers. They're all clearly miraculous, and they're all Christian. So, with a basic scientific education and the time and inclination to study, anybody who has not seen God directly can have the proof of God's EXISTENCE right before his eyes. And not just his EXISTENCE, but his identity. But that's as far as that goes. What God WANTS of you, well, unless he tells you directly and unmistakeably, that knowledge can only come through a combination of conscience, which is God's breath within, and learning. Learning WHAT? Well, the only place one CAN look to see what the Christian God directly said is the Scriptures, so you have to look at THAT. And then it's important to look at what GOD HIMSELF said, directly, in the Bible. About 8% of the words in the Scriptures are directly spoken by God, and THOSE words are quite consistent through the text. So, that's how you can know what God wants. That's where my "short list" was drawn. But even if you know God is, know WHO God is, and know what God wants, you still have to trust that if you limit yourself in the important ways that God said, that you will reap the rewards he promises after death. That is faith: not belief, but trust.
One foot in, one out? I don't understand what you are asking. Do I believe in God? Yes. Do I believe that mortal man can know the Mind of God? No, not unless God directly allows him to, which I don't think has happened yet other than with respect to Christ's human nature.
I have maintained that the nature of Man's original sin was not disobiebence but a lack of trust in God. "Well, the only place one CAN look to see what the Christian God directly said is the Scriptures, so you have to look at THAT." Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?
God in the Bible said he would translate his word to all tongues. What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story. In my opinion from what I have read I do not like the NIV. It is the same as the Jehovas Witness "Bible" in many regards.
Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.
You will have to be more specific for me to understand you better. If you are talking about different Bibles. I would think that some people deliberately try to deceive and some people are trying to translate it again because for some reason or another. They may get some parts right and some wrong. That is the way that I see it. Maybe not the best explanatin as I am not a scholar on the subject. I just have my belifs based what I have read and witnessed in life. I try to be honest with myself and others in the search for what is true and false. I surely get it wrong sometimes but I do seek the truth.
If you are talking about different Bibles. I would think that some people deliberately try to deceive and some people are trying to translate it again because for some reason or another. They may get some parts right and some wrong. Yes. I am referring to the myriad of differences of presumably the same version of the Bible just from the act of translating it from one language to another. I am also referring to the differences in versions that simply lead to disagremment on the nature of the eucarist, for example. "They may get some parts right and some wrong." And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right? This certainly fuels the fire, the temptation, to say that they are all full of it. And certainly to suspicion of the guy that tries to sell you that his version is the one and only true Word of God. Consequently, in put little reliance on Scripture in bringing me to and keeping my relationsip with God. But that's just me.
Logic would seem to dictate to go with the first one in your language. Then test it. Does it contradict itself? If you think it contradicts itself study further and make sure you haven't missed something. I can find things that seem to me to be contradictions to me in the NIV. So I don't trust it. People have told me they have seen contradictions in the King James version. Sometimes people say there are. But I haven't seen anything myself. I know the King James version isn't the fist one. I trust it too though. The verses that I have randomly chose to look at and compare. If I recall sometimes were word for word. Or very as to not change the meaning in my mind. Some verses in other later Bibles seem to say something entirely different sometimes. Or at least miss something or even add stuff as I recall. I don't want to come across as some kind of expert. Because i'm not. But that is what popped out of my mind in response to your question.
And yes, free will is a bitch. God is sovereign. That is what many forget. One only needs to look from Genesis to Revelation. God is sovereign let that sink in for all of us. There is no 'cooperating' with God's Sovereign Grace. It is either trust/faith in Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God, or rejection the this same Gospel. In both cases God is Sovereign. He told that to Abraham, Moses, many prophets in the OT and His Sovereignty is proclaimed in the NT. The Holy Spirit moves people to the Truth as we see in the parable of the soils and as we see in Jesus' discourse to Nicodemus in John 3. At that point once presented the Gospel (the seed is planted) it either falls on a heart of good soil or bad soil. In all cases God is Sovereign. As recorded in Acts of the Apostles: Acts 18: When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. 9 Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. And here we see God's Sovereignty again: Ezekiel 36: 22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
We were created to Glorify God. God provided a plan of redemption and salvation no only to bring us back to Him, but more importantly to Glorify Him. John 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Loads more here: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Indeed. Again, by God's Sovereignty we have the below a promise fulfilled and still going on today through the Power of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2: 2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?” 13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I was not describing "redemption". Who had to be "redeemed"? Go look at what God actually said. The Israelites - who were later reduced down to just the Jews - had to redeem the firstborn of their children and unclean animals by paying money. The redemption was from offering them to God. From the first Passover onward, God demanded that the firstborn of ISRAEL be offered to God. Redemption meant that the sons of man and of unclean animals like asses could be paid for and not offered. The first born of clean animals had to be offered to God, and that meant by slaughter and fire on the altar. But that was for JEWS. Nowhere did God ever say that the firstborn of all mankind or all animalkind, have to be "redeemed". Redemption has a logic of its own within the Jewish matrix. It never applied to Gentiles. Of course Jesus was speaking to Jews - to Peter, James, John, the 12, the 72, the women - all Jews. And given all of the Torah law and all of the traditions and ritual meanings, the Jews had to understand what Jesus was doing in terms of God's covenant with them. But I'm a Gentile. So are you, probably. God's deal with Gentiles was different from the time of Abraham forward. All of mankind was given a simple law from the time of Noah: don't shed human blood, and if you do, you must repay it blood for blood, don't eat living flesh ("flesh with the lifeblood in it), and don't commit adultery. Those are the only laws of God that are clearly revealed in Genesis, before Abraham. Those are the laws for mankind. There are three of them. Three. That's all. It was Jesus who picked back up the story of law for mankind in general, fleshing it out. The rest of Scripture, from Babel until Bethlehem, is only about the specific relationship of God and two particular people: the descendants of Abraham (from the covenant with Abraham), and then the Hebrews/Israelites (later: Jews) (from the covenant with Moses). And what was the covenant with Abraham? Circumcise yourself, and if your lineal heirs of the body continue to circumcise themselves through the ages, then your heirs will occupy a specific land. That's it. That's the "Law of Abraham", the whole thing. If you're not in lineal descent from Abraham, it doesn't apply to you. If you ARE in lineal descent from Abraham and you're an uncircumcised male, then it doesn't apply to you either. If your a circumcised male descendant of Abraham, then God has promised you the Levantine shore of the Middle East. God fulfilled that covenant. Look at the Levant. Who is there? Jews and Arabs, both circumcised, both descended from Abraham. Then was the Mosaic Covenant. It was here that God gave the rules of animal sacrifice and redemption - FOR ISRAELITES. And what was the covenant, exactly? It was: do all of these things, and - if you're a circumcised descendant of Abraham - you will be prosperous and safe on your own farm in Israel. That's it. That's all. God's covenant with the Hebrews did not speak of eternal life, or redemption from personal sin so that one could go to heaven and have life eternal. There were cleanliness laws, but they pertained to being able to participate in the Temple sacrifices, and nothing more. It was Jesus who brought the message of life after death, final judgment and eternal life. What God had revealed up to that point did not make any of that very clear. That's why the Sadduccees, the hereditary priestly class of Israel, missed it completely. There are hints and there is foreshadowing in the revelation to the Hebrews, but the future of human beings after death is not made plain until Jesus makes it so. When Jesus did that, he did it for the whole world, but his live audience was Jews, and the Apostles were all Jews. Jews had additional things to work out, given the extensive nature of revealed law and ritual that had been given specifically to them. Gentiles never were under the Jewish law in the first place. So, for GENTILES, like me, "redemption" is simple. I'm a first born Gentile son, not a Hebrew. Before Jesus came, the law for me was: don't shed human blood, don't eat living flesh and don't commit adultery. I was not a firstborn of Israel, so there was no redemption tax to be paid for me to the Temple. I didn't have to redeem. The animal sacrifices of Israel did not remove the sins of the people to give them everlasting life. They atoned for sin to remove the condemnation for breaking the Mosaic covenant. And recall well the promise of the Mosaic covenant was a farm, on earth, in Israel, for Israelites, and security and prosperity while alive, on that farm. The Mosaic covenant never had anything to do with life after death for Gentiles or for Jews either. That is why fulfilling the Mosaic rituals is so UTTERLY IRRELEVANT for Gentiles, and Jews too. Once Jesus pronounced the doom on the Temple and God tore down the only altar by Roman hands, and then killed and scattered the priesthood, it isn't possible to carry out the terms of the Mosaic covenant even were one to want to, and it wouldn't do any good for anybody other than circumcised lineal descendants of the Hebrews, and the only good it would do them would be to secure them a farm in Israel. In other words, the Old Testament is about a land claim. The only life after death concerning laws for Gentiles in it are: don't shed human blood, don't eat living flesh, and don't commit adultery. It was Jesus, and only Jesus, who brought a new covenant to the world. He didn't bring it to Israel, and it is not an extension of the Mosaic covenant to the world. To wit: Jesus never promised either Gentile or Jew a farm in Israel. What Jesus promised was life after death and eternal life with God, for individuals only (tribe doesn't count for this). And he gave the whole law. So, now Gentiles and Jews mustn't: Shed human blood, especially murder. Commit adultery or other sexual immorality. Lie. Serve idols. Practice pharmakeia. Be cowards. They must love their neighbor as themselves, and love God above all. If they have sinned, to be forgiven they must forgive. And ritualistically they must get themselves baptized and eat the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus. Both of these things are "just becauses". They're not burdensome, but Jesus said they were necessary, so they are. And that's it. So much, so very much, of the rest of the New Testament is Paul and James and other Jews grappling with how to make the detailed Mosaic covenant they so loved square with the new covenant of Jesus. They really agonized about it, because traditions were so important to them, and they found all sorts of poetic and interesting reflections. But Gentiles have to keep their head. Gentiles don't have to be redeemed, because they were never under the first-born rule in the first place. What Gentiles have to do is follow the simple but rather demanding law, forgive to be forgiven, do the few required rituals, and trust God to carry through on his promises. That's it. There's no promise of a farm, like with the Covenant of Moses. In fact, there's a promise of adversity, in this life. The promised "mansion" comes later, after death. When you stick with God said and just read it, it is pretty straightforward. If as a Gentile you try to turn yourself into a Jew and make the mistake of thinking that the Jewish sacrifices and laws were part of a promise of eternal life, well, they're not, and they never say they are. It isn't that Jesus has come and we're no longer under that law. We weren't under it before either. Jesus has come, so we're under a law if we want to live forever. Jews too. It's the Jews who were released from those laws, by words, and by deeds: God tore down the Temple and wrecked the lineal priesthood, making it impossible to actually carry out the Mosaic covenant anyway. That's really the truth. But it leaves a lot of the Jewish-focused parts of the Bible beside the point. The Gentile message is simpler, because God never made a Constitution for the Gentiles. He actually RULED Israel, so for Israel, only, he had to make laws governing all things. For everybody else, and even Jews in this day and age, there's less law, but a greater reward. The City of God and "the life of eons" is a greater prize than a farm in the Middle East.
Gary gave a good laydown of this on LP many moons ago. Perhaps if he has time he can lay out for us the number of manuscripts circulating over the past 1900 years, location and other details. I know Vic and TC did some research on this waaay back as well. I pinged them. LOL, Vic had a great thread he responded to when an atheist screed was posted. He basically argued using the author's standard of manuscript evidence would 'prove' Julius Caesar never wrote anything and may not have existed:) AKA, Gary also opined on the JW Bible the NWT as well. SOSO has a proclivity to drop these "translation/transposing" bombs now and then as he did on LP.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
That's an easy one. There are those who take the Scriptures for what they say; and there are those who wrest Scriptures to support what they want it to say. Pretty easy. And one only needs to look at the consistency of God's Revelation to mankind from Genesis to Revelation to see that.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Just go to FR. There is a eucharist battle over there every day. A very unproductive one at it. You will get your fill there.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
A translation is but an echo. The Hebrew Dead Sea Scroll texts in Ivrit characters are the Hebrew Scriptures. To the extent that the texts are missing, then a comparison of the Hebrew Leningrad Codex with the Koine Greek Codex Vaticanus gives the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. A comparison of the Patriarchal Text and the Codex Vaticanus gives the best New Testament text. The one is in ancient Hebrew. The other is in Koine Greek. The best translation of both is the Vulgate Latin, because Jerome had access to massive amounts of ancient manuscript material lost to time, because the Church was not then divided in the way it has become since, because he was a genius, because Latin and Greek were both languages of the same milieu in the same culture, and because Jerome lived in the same Roman Empire as Jesus and the Jews had, with the same laws and cultural references and contexts, and he spoke Greek and Latin as a fluent native speaker. So, he had manuscripts, and he was a native speaker of the Greek he was translating. He compared the Hebrew and the Greek and found the Hebrew HE was looking at to be more persuasive than the Greek. Latin is even closer to us than Greek or Hebrew, but it's still a translation. Truth be told, there are only about 20 words in Scripture upon whose definitions everything turns. If one translates those words wrong, if one mangles the concept being conveyed, then one will come to a decidedly different place from what was actually expressed. Most English translations are reasonably good, if those key words are properly understood. When those words are misunderstood, then wildly different theologies emerge. And the words that matter most are the 8% or so in there directly spoken by God himself, for "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." The words that proceeded forth out of the mouth of God are not many, but they give all the law, and they are the ones you absolutely have to focus on, or you can end up anywhere. What God said in Scripture doesn't conflict, but what men say ABOUT what God said in Scripture often conflicts. Those conflicts are not resolvable by pitting men against men, but they ARE resolvable by going to the words that proceeded forth directly out of the mouth of God. God said altogether less to men than men said ABOUT God to each other. The stuff men said ABOUT God is inspiring and inspired, but it's not LAW. What God said directly: that (and only that) is law. That is where your Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English studies need to focus, and most specifically on those 20 words. Understand what "life" IS, and you understand what is at stake throughout. Miss that, and you're flailing around trying to figure out how all of those various purity laws of the Jews, so important for their society as God constituted it, apply to you and me...and unfortunately you've only God Jews like Paul and John and James and Peter to guide you on those matters, and they focus on them in ways that resolve problems within Judaism that Gentiles don't have in the first place. The purpose should never be to find ways to quibble with fellow Christians, but rather, to discern just what precisely God said. And then do THAT.
Who got it right? Well Jesus Christ did of course! Luke 24: 25 Then He said to them,“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. ................ 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” Then this as well with the Apostle Paul summarizing the importance of focusing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ: 1 Corinthians 15: 15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Well Jesus Christ did of course! Was that the sound of a huge punt that I just heard? "Then this as well with the Apostle Paul summarizing the importance of focusing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ: 1 Corinthians 15: 15 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." Did Paul preach transubstantiation? Did he preach the infallibility of the Pope? Did he teach that Gensis was to be taken literally as historical fact? Do I need to go on?
Awfully sloppy of God, wouldn't you say?
Do I believe that mortal man can know the Mind of God? No, not unless God directly allows him to, which I don't think has happened yet other than with respect to Christ's human nature. Well, that's a matter of context. Do we know what God expects of us? YES. He teaches love, kindness, honesty, honor -- all the virtues...and draws us nearer to Him (if we listen to Him more and less to our own narcissitic voice.) Do we know His exact Plan for us individually, or exactly how our respective lives play out? NO. I'm sure others will be more articulte on answering your questions, or addressing faith issues.
God provided a plan of redemption and salvation no only to bring us back to Him, but more importantly to Glorify Him. Excellent.
Too many fail to heed and embrace God's word.
You would know.
Yes, I have closely observed your posts.
I could show you. But they're all the same. There's what God said, and then there's what men say ABOUT God. What the men say sometimes contradicts God, and sometimes contradicts each other. What God said is pretty straightforward. The most glaring apparent contradiction in what God said comes in three parts. Jesus said that not a penstroke of the Torah would change until heaven and earth ended. In the Torah, God gave the rules for divorce. But Jesus said that it was Moses who wrote that, "due to the hardness of your hearts", and that it was not so in the beginning. Then Jesus laid down a law that said that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. This is a nest of contradictions. If we penetrate the translations to the Greek, the contradiction remains. KJV, NIV, NAB, ASV, Greek manuscript, Hebrew, Vulgate - doesn't matter what you use, the contradiction is there, and it's a vital one, because before Jesus God only gave three laws directly to Gentiles in the Scripture, and one of those was against adultery. And Jesus, at the end of the Bible, twice says that adulterers fail judgment and are thrown into the lake of fire. The last word on what CONSTITUTES adultery is: he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Indeed, he who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery. Divorce and remarriage is adultery, Jesus said, and adulterers fail judgment and are thrown into the Lake of Fire, Jesus said twice on the last two pages of the Bible - indeed, those are among God's very last words in Scripture, after everybody else has had their say. We should note that very well, because all of the letters of the Apostles come before Revelation, John is the last of them, so God Himself has the LAST word on all of it. Logically, one would think that where there is tension (and there is), that God's taking the last word would settle it. Indeed, one would think (logically), that wherever God speaks in Scripture, that trumps everything else, and that if God changes a rule later that he made earlier, that the later rule stands. That's the only logical answer, but men don't like that answer, because the Jesus of Revelation in God's final words to man gives a law that is stricter than men would like. So men - Gentiles like Jews before them - rather prefer to go back to something said earlier in the text and make THAT the rule. That doesn't make sense. Anyway, take your KJV and look at what Moses says about divorce, what Jesus says about the law of Moses, and then what Jesus says about divorce. This isn't a reversal, there is a contradiction there. "You can divorce." "Not a word will change until the world ends." "If you divorce, you commit adultery, and adultery will cause you to fail judgment." That's a violent change, and a violent contradiction. And that's why the Christian Churches all have contradictory teachings on divorce - it isn't just that men WANT to divorce (and they do), but it's because the text appears to contradict. The contradiction is obvious. Now I'll tell you why it's not there. In Genesis, God puts man and women together as one flesh. He nearly kills Abimelek, and he sickens Pharaoh's household, because of adultery or the near commission of it with Sarai, Abram's wife. Then God gives Moses the law allowing divorce in the Torah. Stop: fact check. What law has God given to the world here? Man and woman form one flesh, don't commit adultery. Now, God gave a law to the Jews - only - permitting them to divorce. Jesus comes and says that the law given to the Jews will remain until the world ends. Ok, so the law does not change. Jews could divorce. But he gives the law for the world (which would be the 99% of humanity who are NOT Jews, that reminds everybody of marriage as originally constituted: one flesh, and Jesus makes it clear that sundering it is adultery. So there's the law for the world, and then there's tension regarding the Jews. But then in the last week Jesus pronounces the doom of Israel. When God established Israel under Moses, he warned them through Moses that if they FOLLOWED all his laws, they would get their farm in Israel, but if they DIDN'T, they would be destroyed and driven out. Jesus in his last week pronounced sentence on Israel: complete destruction of the Temple. Now, God's law was very clear: the Jewish rites MUST be carried out, they can ONLY be carried out by Aaronic priests, and they can only be carried out on the one altar. God destroyed the Temple and the altar, and ended Israel. So, the LAW is indeed left intact, unchanged, but the Israel for which the law was made was destroyed by God forever because part of the law threatened just that for disobedience. And Jesus said that thereafter, that now, the only path for anybody was HIM. So, on paper there's that Torah, and it is as it was written, and we can all see it with its rules, including the softer rule for Israel under God's law that permitted divorce (and thereby permitted it in Israel without bringing the doom on Israel). But Israel brought the doom on itself for breaking all sorts of other laws, and God's doom was irrevocable. No Temple, no priesthood, no sacrifices, the law is not fulfilled, and the WHOLE law has to be fulfilled or Israel stays doomed. In fact, God never said after Jesus pronounced the doom that if the Jews just went back to the Torah they would have Israel reconstituted and get their farm back. Quite the opposite! Jews would have to follow the whole Torah AND follow Jesus as Son of God, or they would remain under the ban. They didn't and don't. So the LAW is still there, but there's nobody to follow it and no nation to be rewarded FOR following it. And remember well: the promise for obeying the whole Torah wasn't everlasting life, it was a prosperous farm in Israel while you lived. So, what's left of Moses' law of divorce? It's there in the books, an allowance, but Jesus made it clear that God's law for the world is no divorce, that divorce and remarriage are adultery, and that adulterers are thrown into the fire. So, that's the law, clear and unambiguous, and that's been what marriage has been since the beginning: one man, one woman, once. This, then, leads to the question: What if I have fucked up and committed adultery, either by sleeping outside of wedlock, or divorcing and remarrying? Failing judgment would seem inevitable, because Jesus said that's the lot of adulterers. What hope, then? Well, Jesus really only gave one: forgive. He said that those who forgive will be forgiven. Adultery is a deadly sin. Divorce and remarriage is adultery. And as long as it lasts, it would appear to continue to be adultery. Maybe there really is no hope for adulterers in this situation other than divorcing their new wives and assuming a position of celibacy or returning to their only true wives. Or perhaps by being endlessly forgiving of others, following Jesus' instructions, people in that circumstance will be forgiven by God also, as Jesus' promised. We should recall that the Samaritan woman at the well had been married four times and was living with a man who wasn't her husband. Truth is: the Scriptures do not tell you the clear answer. There are logical bars to EVERY path one might take. They get worse when you start adding in what Paul and James and Jude and John and Peter had to say on top of it. If you stick with what God had to say, God's LAST WORD on the matter is that adulterers don't enter the City of God and are thrown into the fire. There are hundreds of millions of people who reject Jesus in the Scriptures on this matter, and choose to believe traditions and logic of their own making. But even if one sticks to the Bible, truth is, the subject is a MESS without a clear answer. But there is a LAST answer, and twice repeated, and that's that adulterers are thrown into the fire. And there's an example of a welter of contradictions within the Scriptures on a core matter.
I have had my fill a long time ago. The problem is that there is no way to get past the fact of the evolution of so many so-called Christian sects with sudstantial disagreement on what Scripture actually says, much less means. As you said, it is an unproductive debate. One either has faith or one doesn't. One either believes that every word in Scripture must be literally taken as historical fact (which led some of the faithful to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old) or one does not (but still have an abiding faith in God and Jesus Christ as their Savior). Then there are some of the faithful that believe all go to Heaven. There are even some of the faithful that don't know what to believe for sure about Scripture. I am much more persuaded by the notion of one knowing God and Jesus through their heart, through the gift of faith bestowed upon us by God Himself as opposed to knowing Him solely through Scripture. My dear Ole Ram, we have been down this road before. I am still searching for answers which I know in my mind I know that I will never receive in this life. However this does not detract from my belief in God and belief that He makes His presence in my life known to me - as He would do for anyone that seeks it. IMO religion, churches just get in the way of the realtionship between God and Man. We do not need a flawed human institution to act as a middleman. I have enough personal flaws to satisfy that condition. And we don't need a made made channel to Him to realize what He already made available to us at birth. I do not criticize those that feel that they need a helping hand to realize their relationship with God. To the extent that Churches do that all well and good. I just remind you that we are redeemed individually, one soul at a time not as a commuinty where it is all in or all out.
Stone please meet Vicomte13. Articulate little devil, ain't he?
I would almost universally agree with that. There still are those true moral delimenas in which we as mortal men must make a choice between two conflicing moral actions, aka as the lesser of evils. IMO that is why God has endowed man with both free will and a conscience. Men seem to be willing to more freely exercise the former over the latter. Humans can rationalize just about anything if they turn down the volume of that inner Godly voice.
No. God said what he said. That men wrote down a bunch of words all around it and that other men hold the different sources of authority as being equal, when they are not, is not sloppy of God at all. GOD said "Man lives by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God." And what is more, when it comes to those few decisive words, God not only used the words, but the words are written in ancient Hebrew Ivrit PICTOGRAPHS, which don't just convey sound but meaning. So we can read the meaning, hearing the meaning and SEE the meaning corroborated by the pictures. God didn't really say all that much - only 8% of Scripture, and if you eliminate all of the ritualistic stuff that God said to the Hebrews that don't apply to anybody, it drops to less than 1%. Usually things are repeated three or four times, so that distills down to about 0.25% of the words in the Scriptures. If there are 2000 pages in the Bible, there are about 4 pages of original, directive law that apply to everybody, and just about everybody already knows that law anyway, because it's not just written on the pages - in triplicate or sextuplicate, but because it's written in everybody's conscience, as we are each a separate breath of God (breath is spirit). None of this is meant to trivialize the wisdom of what is contained in the longer canon. Still, for somebody like you, who sees a welter of confusion and contradiction, I think it is important to realize these things: (1) God left about 100 tangible objects that are miracles of physics, and that are clearly Christian in nature. And he left precisely 0 miraculous objects that are any other religion in nature, or secular in nature. So, through your physics, chemistry and biological training you CAN, if you are willing to apply the effort, come to a purely intellectual knowledge of the existence of God, and the divinity of Jesus. This is demonstrable by the physics and does not require a leap of belief beyond believing that our physics are largely accurate and useful, and that the data you have been given is not itself all tricked and hoaxy. (2) With knowledge certain of God, and of the divinity of Christ, you can look at what it is recorded that God said - and you can see God saying in his own words to listen to HIS words. So then if you go through Scripture, you'll have about 160 pages. You'll see its repetitive and be able to distill it down to 4 applicable pages, in any translation. (3) With those four pages, you can then delve into the Hebrew and Greek for the key words about which all meaning hangs: "God", "spirit", "life", "eternal", "good", "bad", "love", "law", "soul", "follow". (4) After this exercise, you'll know the law, and you'll know that it's: Don't shed human blood, don't eat living flesh, don't commit sexual immorality (including adultery or other vile or abominable practices), don't lie, don't practice pharmakeia, don't serve idols, and don't be a coward. If you do those things, you'll be thrown into the fire and fail judgment. If you don't, you'll pass judgment. If you've done some of those things but follow Jesus by stopping doing them, and forgiving others their sins against you, God will forgive you. If you don't believe that Jesus is divine, you won't in fact stop doing the bad things or forgive, and you won't love, unless Jesus sends God's spirit to you anyway. In this way, it's Jesus who saves all whom he saves, regardless of the differences in their view of him. (5) Life can be long, so practice loving living, in Christ's model, and you will have your reward from God in the City of God and in Paradise after death, and maybe on earth too. And that's all there is to it.
I find this thread very interesting
Awfully sloppy of God, wouldn't you say? No. God said what he said. That men wrote down a bunch of words all around it and that other men hold the different sources of authority as being equal, when they are not, is not sloppy of God at all. You mean those at the Council of Nicaea? Those men?
I like free will
And yet, it is organized religion that preserved the artifacts (for the Thomases who really need the physical proof), and it is organized religion that also preserved the words that God said and brought them down through the ages, and it is organized religion that has taught the basics to generation after generation. Without organization we wouldn't have any of those things unless God preserved them all by more direct physics-bending miracles. Now, I never spontaneously talk about what God and I talked about when I talked with God, but here, I will if only to clarify something. He and I did not discuss Jesus and angels or religion. We talked about physics. And the core lesson - the revelation - is that things are as they are, the physics work as they do, because God set them up the way he likes them. "I work on nature through nature" is what he said when I asked for probative miracles, and he grabbed ME and caused ME to directly do, with my hands, what it is I was demanding HE do. That I was not in control was clear, but he didn't use "force at a distance" - he possessed my flesh directly and made my flesh do what I had demanded in the normal way that I would otherwise were I not talking to God. So, God has left physics defying miracles in order to provide the proof for the Thomases, but he hasn't left a ton of them, and he doesn't lightly go against his own opinion. He does it for a reason. Jesus didn't set up a Bible dispensary. He set up a church, that passed down the essence by word of mouth. And although God COULD have done the miracles any way he choose, he chose to give the lesson of life after death by the most bloody and horrible death at the hands of the most powerful authorities: the Temple of the Jews and the spears of the Romans - using their full power to mete out death, by which they removed all those opposed. And then God brushed the death aside with life again - mocking the power of the religious court, the high priest, the executioner's nails and spears, the governor and the Roman Empire itself. But he didn't keep on doing that over and over. He is sparing in his miracle- making. So, COULD he have done without Churches and men and word-of-mouth and tradition, and held it all up by miracle? Of course. But he didn't. And perhaps he didn't because he made it such that to be rewarded with a good life after death you have to follow him, and he said that following him MEANT carrying out certain things, including carrying forth his message. He imposed the need to keep writing it and repeating it, and in the face of adversity too. You want to live forever? You want immortality? Imagine if a technology could be devised to give that - would it be available to all, or would it be jealously and violently guarded by the men who had possession of it? There is such a technology: it is called the Christian religion, and God makes it such that you cannot have the greatest prize: immortality, unless you do what you do not want to do, and TRUST him and follow him and do what he said. Do it, and you get the prize (before, it was do it, and you get a farm in Israel). Refuse to, or don't, and you also live, but it's not very nice. Sort of like choosing to study, or not, in high school and college. Your choice. Consequences to follow... Now then, God forced men to have to be the ones to carry forward the message, in written forms and through repeating it, and to guard the artifacts - and often at risk or pain to themselves. And he said that COWARDS are thrown into the fire: if you want to keep your life, you will lose it, he said. In other words: It's his way or the highway...to Hell. Given that we're made in his image, we understand this perfectly well, for our own characters are not all that different. We get it. We just don't like it. So we kick at it. I think that men such as you should start first with the basics: look at the physics of the physical artifacts. God left those to PROVE IT. Once proved, then you realize that "faith" doesn't mean "belief", it means TRUST. You knew God was there before, and now you REALLY know it, for sure, because you can't escape the science of the artifacts. And now the dog's breakfast continues, because then you're faced with: alright, what do you WANT? He might answer you directly. More probably he'll just point you towards something ELSE you don't want to do, which is to have to learn what he said from OTHER people. Note that he made baptism a REQUIREMENT for passing final judgment and entering the City of God...and baptism can only be done TO you. You can't baptize yourself. The fact that God made baptism a requirement for life in the City with him means that God forced every man to depend on another Christian person for his salvation, because a man cannot baptize himself. So, Jesus FORCES every single man who wants to be saved to pass through one short, stupid ritual that can only be performed ON him by ANOTHER Christian, thereby making the salvation of every man dependent not just on God alone, but on another MAN being willing to give baptism. It's a non-trivial requirement - that human salvation cannot be achieved without the direct agency of another human being. No man can save himself, for Jesus said that baptism was necessary, and even HE insisted that John the Baptist had to baptize him, demonstrating that Jesus Christ did not baptize himself. Now, would Jesus have been resurrected had no man baptized him? Not according to Jesus himself. God set things up to REQUIRE men to pass through at least one ritual of organized religion with another man. The man who is too proud to do that is damned. Man requires God for salvation. But every man also requires another man for his salvation, for no man is saved without baptism, and even Jesus did not baptize himself. Like it or not, SOME degree of organized religion is, in fact, absolutely necessary for the salvation of every man. Salvation requires the agency of another Christian human. No baptism, no eternal life. It's repetitive, but guess what? God repeats most things three times in the Bible too, at least. Know why? Because human beings need to hear things three times to really retain them. God is no fun. He likes things a certain way, and for men to have the prize, they have to submit to doing it his way. If they won't, they piss him off, he kills them, raises them, and then they know, and then he throws them into the fire because he doesn't like them. And why should he? He has left the hard proof. If men choose to be stubborn and lie and say he hasn't, that's their own damned fault. And he's left the instructions of what not to do, and what to do, and they're not long. If men choose to be stubborn and blow him off, he's said what they've got coming. And he carries things out just like that, because God likes his own opinion, and he's going to do it that way, and you (and I) are just not important enough to him for him to change his mind about anything. We can stamp our feet all we like - we die anyway. We CAN live forever, but we have to CHOOSE to. And truth is, mostly, the world doesn't WANT to be saved. So God gives them their wish, and they're not.
I was thinking of Paul and James, actually, but sure, the men of Nicaea also.
Do we know His exact Plan for us individually, or exactly how our respective lives play out? NO. I agree with you Liberator
Hi Palo! It has been a long time since I've seen you post. Hope you are well. Everyone has an opportunity to communicate with God. Individuals can either take advantage or decline. I've never been able to comprehend why anyone would decline.
"When a fox is in the bottle where the tweetle beetles battle with their paddles in a puddle on a noodle-eating poodle. THIS is what they call... ...a tweetle beetle noodle poodle bottle paddled muddled duddled fuddled wuddled fox in socks, sir!" - Seuss
That's an awful lot of bloviating by the men the inked the Bible. "Still, for somebody like you, who sees a welter of confusion and contradiction, I think it is important to realize these things: The only confusion that I see is what has been put there by man, not God. You admit as much but take a lot more words to to it. "Don't shed human blood, don't eat living flesh, don't commit sexual immorality (including adultery or other vile or abominable practices), don't lie, don't practice pharmakeia, don't serve idols, and don't be a coward. If you do those things, you'll be thrown into the fire and fail judgment. So Ghandi is in Heaven as is every good orthodox Rabbi and every good person that has not done those things. Great, that's what I always believed. BTW, I had to look up the word pharmakeia:) Is aspirin included?
With green eggs and ham no doubt.
Perhaps it's because they don't like what He has to say about the choices they make in life? Perhaps they believe they communicate better when they are high on drugs or booze and therefor substitute those for God? Or perhaps it is becuase they believe that there is nothing greater than themself? Just some random thoughts. BTW, hello to both of you. It has been a long time since I have seen a post from either. Hope all is well.
When we turn to the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, we find a wealth of relevant material in all four Gospels and in the four major strata of the synoptic Gospels (Mark; the material peculiar to Matthew; the material peculiar to Luke; and the material common to Matthew and Luke, usually called "Q"). We are not confined to a few key statements but have a host of quotations and allusions that appear in a great variety of situations. These accounts are often the more telling since they reveal Jesus' basic assumptions more than His specific teachings. We can hear Christ preaching to the multitudes and instructing disciples, refuting opponents and answering enquirers. We can hear Him in His private conflict with the tempter at the beginning of His ministry and in His final instructions prior to the Ascension. As we proceed, it will become clear that, throughout the Gospel material, Jesus' view of the Old Testament is un-changing. We will examine, in turn, His views of the truth of its history, the authority of its teaching, and the inspiration of its writing. As the evidence is assembled, it will lead us to a firm and objective conclusion. We will see that Christ held the Old Testament to be historically true, completely authoritative, and divinely inspired. To Him, the God of the Old Testament was the living God, and the teaching of the Old Testament was the teaching of the living God. To Him, what Scripture said, God said. Jesus consistently treats Old Testament historical narratives as straightforward records of fact. He refers to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27), Abraham (John 8:56), the institution of circumcision (John 7:22; cf. Gen. 17:10-12; Lev. 12:3), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 10:12), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28), manna (John 6:31, 49, 58), the snake in the desert (John 3: 14), David eating the consecrated bread (Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4), David as a psalm writer (Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42), Solomon (Matt. 6:29; 12:42; Luke 11:31; 12:27), Elijah (Luke 4:25, 26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt. 12:39-41; Luke 11:29, 30, 32), and Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The last passage brings out Jesus' sense of the unity of history and His grasp of its wide sweep. His eye surveys the whole course of history from "the creation of the world" to "this generation." He repeatedly refers to Moses as the giver of the Law (Matt. 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:5; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He frequently mentions the sufferings of the true prophets (Matt. 5:12; 13:57; 21:34-36; 23:29-37; Mark 6:4 [cf. Luke 4:24; John 4:44]; 12:2-5; Luke 6:23; 11:47-51; 13:34; 20:10-12) and comments on the popularity of the false prophets (Luke 6:26). He sets the stamp of His approval on such significant passages as Genesis 1 and 2 (Matt. 19:4, 5; Mark 10:6-8). These quotations are taken by our Lord more or less at random from different parts of the Old Testament, and some periods of its history are covered more fully than others. Yet it is evident that He was familiar with most, if not all, of the Old Testament and that He treated all parts of it equally as history.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
I believe you could be on to something with that observation. Hello to you. I'm assuming we have crossed paths previously. Hope all is well with you.
So the Earth really is a few thousand years old?
We have on LP.
Where did Jesus say that?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
No shedding of blood, or eating living flesh, or serving idols. Probably many have met those conditions. No sexual immorality? I doubt that there are any normal, healthy people who have not committed sexual immorality. So that's that, then. Without forgiveness by God, everybody but autistic vegetables and cripples gets thrown into the fire because all human beings are normal sexually immoral at some point. No lying? That catches anybody who says he's never been sexually immoral. Don't be a coward? Cowardice leads to lies and to the shedding of blood, so it's part of a process. Aspirin is not pharmakeia: it doesn't significantly alter the mind. Coffee isn't either. Tobacco is bad for you, but it's not pharmakeia. Alcohol isn't, but it's in its own category - necessary for salvation (gotta drink the blood), but necessary to limit. I suppose it's like sex - with your wife: good. With every woman on the street, or with one donkey: bad. If you can't drive under its influence, it's probably pharmakeia. Of course, it's not simply use, it's use to alter the mind, let in the demons...or offering it for sale to do that. Still, it's a quibble. Dealing in death-dealing drugs will get you damned. The prohibitions on sexual immorality and lying probably devour all of healthy humanity. So, we're all doomed to death for our sins. And guess what - we all die! Crime...punishment. THEN what? Well, that's the issue. Death CAN be the punishment that cuts it off: sentenced to death for sin and executed by God - for the wage of sin is death, but life of the spirit goes on, and you get another body someday...which promptly gets judged and killed AGAIN, unless you are forgiven the sin. There is debate among men as to how. There shouldn't be, because Jesus SAID how. God's forgiving, but step one is STOP DOING IT (whatever IT is). If you don't stop doing it, once you know you should (and we know we should from the beginning, because God gave us all a conscience), if you persist until death - prognosis not good. Step 2 is: forgive other people. You're forgiven, by God, for your offenses against him, to the extent that you forgive others' offenses against you. The extent you refuse to do that, you're not forgiven either. Also, we ought to remember that the status in the City of God of everybody who passes judgment is not the same. There are the least in "Heaven" (really the City). They're THERE, but they're the least. It's better than the lake of fire, but still... Strive for better and you can have better. Or do the minimum and sweep the streets. It's better than burning.
Hello Gary. Happy New Year. Good to see you here.
Everyone has an opportunity to communicate with God. Individuals can either take advantage or decline. I've never been able to comprehend why anyone would decline. Hi Yukon
Likewise.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
All of us do, but few of us willingly admit it. Apparently you and I have traversed some of the same rough waters. God bless you.
Thank you my darling
If man cannot understand God, then accordingly His sending Christ to die on that old rugged cross was without purpose. If language is a man made concept, then God does not think.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
You forgot the repentence aspect of forgiveness. Most (I would hope) people of otherwise healthy morality and intergity, recognize the immorality of certain sexual acts and are truly regretful for their earthly, human weakness in their soul where God resides. The same is true about cowardice, be it physical or moral cowardice. "God's forgiving, but step one is STOP DOING IT (whatever IT is)." Do you not see the inherent contraction, conflict with this statement and yours of "The prohibitions on sexual immorality and lying probably devour all of healthy humanity." You are advocating a position that on one hand states that the God given nature of man is to sin (at least these two specific sins) and His requirement that we stop sinning period if we want to dance with Him in Heaven on the other hand. Please don't clap as that would be the irrestible force meeting the immovable object. I remind you that God created man knowing fully well that Original Sin was just around the corner. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. Do you really believe that God will punish a man because He created the nature of man to succumb to sin and man cannot overcome that nature? It is one thing for man to "say, yeah, I know it's wrong but so what" and entirely another to say "yes, I know it's wrong and I will earnestly try to stop doing it". We all sin. Most of us are repentful but relapse. Many seek absolution and all of those wind up sinning again. God cannot be that cruel as to set man against hinself in that manner and hold him accountable for it with an impossible condition to fulfill. The act of contrition IMO is enough even if the flesh is too week to keep it. As long as that earnest contrition is within a person IMO God will forgive. The honest striving is enough. Only God knows what is in a man's heart.
That does not follow. God created man with certain attributes, not the least of which is supposedly being in God's image. Adam certainly had the capacity for understanding the things God communicated to him The text of Gensis is repleate with consversational exchanges between God and Adam and Eve. They didn't get it right the first time. Jesus represents a second chane for man. There is no assure that man will get it right the second time around. "If language is a man made concept, then God does not think." He probably doesn't in the manner we humans ascribe to thinking. Do you honestly believe that God spoke to Adam and Adam responded to God in a language as we understand that term to mean? If so, what language might that have been and why would it have been lost to humanity? Now I understand the contradiction in my contention as represented by the story of Babel. There God seemingly did create languages to confound man, to keep man from communicating with each other. It may very well be that God intended language to continue to confound man by preventing perfect communications among people. Who knows for sure?
Where did Jesus say that? SOme Chrisyians firmly believe that this is manifest in the literal interpretaion of the Old Testament. You stated that Jesus codified the Old Testamebnt as historical fact. If He did then those who lierally interperate the Old Testament can claim that Jesus supports their position. But that is not the point that is was trying to making? So I will ask ago, is the Earth really just a few thousand years old as the Old Testament leads some to conclude?
Wow...AWESOME testimony, Annie! So without these trying times and tribulation you may not have ever called on the name of "Jesus!" So very nice to see you and read your story. You've always lent much needed a gentle, moderating quality to the forums. Missed ya... Lib
You can go on but with every key stroke show you have not examined the Scriptures for yourself. Here's more: Acts 17: 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.(KJV) More: 2 Timothy 3: 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(KJV) Examine the Scriptures SOSO. No punting here. It's all there open for examination.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
How so? John 14: 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.(KJV)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Au contaire. I wrote: "God's forgiving, but step one is STOP DOING IT (whatever IT is)." "Repent" means "turn back", from sin - stop sinning. I didn't forget about repentance: I put it front and center. When Jesus began his public ministry, the first thing he said was "Stop Sinning" ("Repent"). The other aspect of forgiveness, as Jesus himself preached it, was that human sins against God are forgiven if, and only if, and only to the extent, that humans forgive other humans their sins. "As you measure, so shall you be measured." These were Jesus' main teachings on the subject: God will forgive your sins, but you need to stop doing it, and to the extent you have sins, you need to be forgiven. And to be forgiven, you have to forgive. That's what Jesus said. He said it plain. He didn't give some other formula, so that's the formula. He said men are judged by their deeds, repent, stop sinning, and if you want to be forgiven, then forgive others: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Not much to argue with there: those are the commandments. It's not even particularly hard. The answer to your question is stop sinning. And if you can't or don't, then be very forgiving. You wrote about "Original Sin", but these words are not in Scripture.
Hey Yukon.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
But the act is amply described, as is the consequences to Adam and Eve and their progeny. A rose by any other name my friend.
What you posted above is evidenced in Scriptures. Just have to flip to 1 Corinthians 13: 1 Corinthians 13 King James Version (KJV) 13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.(KJV)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I do not criticize those that feel that they need a helping hand to realize their relationship with God. To the extent that Churches do that all well and good. I just remind you that we are redeemed individually, one soul at a time not as a commuinty where it is all in or all out. I have to say you make a good point. The NT example of the assembly or church, or called out ones, was to gather to share the Lord's Supper, praise God, teach His written Word. It was a loving community, gathering fellowship of the Body of Christ, His church His called out ones. They read from scrolls and codexes, those who could not read listened. They shared as a body. The elders/bishops were shepherds of the flock, not bedecked in gold and satin with a mitre. The elders (plural) reproved, corrected and disciplined according to the Scriptures they had (OT) and sermons of the apostles and also epistles written down. Like good Bereans when conflicts arose they went to the well of Scriptures. We see this in the early church father's writings.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
New International Version - And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. New Living Translation - Three things will last forever--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love. English Standard Version - So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. New American Standard Bible - But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. King James Bible - And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Holman Christian Standard Bible - Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. International Standard Version - Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. NET Bible - And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. Aramaic Bible in Plain English - For there are these three things that endure: Faith, Hope and Love, but the greatest of these is Love. GOD'S WORD® Translation - So these three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the best one of these is love. Jubilee Bible 2000 - And now abide faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. King James 2000 Bible - And now abides faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. American King James Version - And now stays faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. American Standard Version - But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love. Douay-Rheims Bible - And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity. Darby Bible Translation - And now abide faith, hope, love; these three things; and the greater of these [is] love. English Revised Version - But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love. Webster's Bible Translation - And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Weymouth New Testament - And so there remain Faith, Hope, Love--these three; and of these the greatest is Love. World English Bible - But now faith, hope, and love remain--these three. The greatest of these is love. Young's Literal Translation - and now there doth remain faith, hope, love -- these three; and the greatest of these is love. Yep, love over charity 16-5. But among the three King James versions it charity over love by 2-1. I trust the point isn't lost on you.
Well yes. God created us with a brain housing group between our ears. He expects us to use that brain, to employ some logic in our decisions. Just think of some old toolie engineer not using his brain. Disaster! I think the correct and logical approach to the moral dilemma you pose can easily be addressed with the following: "Is what I am doing or thinking about doing bring glory to God?" If we who call on the Name of Jesus Christ address our actions in such a way then we can avoid the majority of the stupid things we do trying to rationalize stuff. With that logical brain we have a conscience. But again, God has some work He does first. Ezekiel 36: 23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.(KJV)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Hi Palo. This bunch (me included) is just getting warmed up:) However I have to say this is the most cordial exchange I've seen in some time.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
"Is what I am doing or thinking about doing bring glory to God?" That's fine when one or the other choice may bring glory to God. Unfortunately this falls apart when both choices do not bring glory to God as each will offend some of His expectations of us in one way or another. Of course the overarching question is what man determines what God considers to be glorious to being with any degree of certainty?
Yep pretty much sums it up. You can leave the religion forum there for years and come back and its the same stuff.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I think the correct and logical approach to the moral dilemma you pose can easily be addressed with the following: "Is what I am doing or thinking about doing bring glory to God?" If we who call on the Name of Jesus Christ address our actions in such a way then we can avoid the majority of the stupid things we do trying to rationalize stuff. With that logical brain we have a conscience. I also can see SOSO point on some slightly ambiguous confusion. Which "coaching staff" is right about the playbook? Using a football analogy, charting X's and O's on the chaulkboard mean less than executing the play in the field, and adjusting accordingly to the defense. The clinical play design doesn't take into account the heart and will of the player overcome the wind, bad footing, or a bad day.
I guess the question would be did Ghandi and the orthodox Rabbi come to Jesus Christ for salvation. Did they trust in the finished Work of Christ's death and resurrection? John 11:25King James Version (KJV) 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 14 King James Version (KJV) 14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Or calling the right play at the right time.
When? Was there a deathbed conversion or acceptance? Or did they see the light once they actually saw the Light?
Are we back to the fundamental, "Love your neighbors as you love yourself"? Sharing the Gospel? Being Christ's light in the dark?
The "right play" is always God first. The right time is now. Today. Tomorrow.
Ping
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I don't think so. I am referring to a crisis of conscience within an individual when he has to make a choice when, all things equal, neither action is acceptable to what he believes God expects of him. A trite example might be whether or not a man should stand by and watch his wife and children be murdered by a nutso when the man had the capacity to save his family by killing the nutso as he commenced to do harm to the man's family. God says thou shall not kill. Does He mean that in the absoulte in every circumstance? Or does He expect you to protect the lives of your family even if it meant that you had to kill to do so?
Also, we ought to remember that the status in the City of God of everybody who passes judgment is not the same. There are the least in "Heaven" (really the City). They're THERE, but they're the least. It's better than the lake of fire, but still... Strive for better and you can have better. Or do the minimum and sweep the streets. It's better than burning. You missed the overarching piece. The actual Gospel.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
That's a winning playbook, Red :-) SOSO: "So Ghandi is in Heaven as is every good orthodox Rabbi and every good person that has not done those things. Great, that's what I always believed." Gandhi was a "good" person; So were/are many Rabbis. So were/are many atheists. I realize this is troubling and disturbing -- we all have friends and family who are compassionate, GOOD people. But they may not have bought into or understood the concept of Salvation for sinners through Jesus Christ. Nor believe in it. Red has cited Jesus' own words, warnings, and conditions in Scripture -- with authority. The most definitive, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Now what? The minute we are all on the other side, what then? Was/is Jesus a liar? A crazy man? If Christ is indeed who He says he is; If He HAS fulfilled propecy as THE Messiah. Then what IS the lot of Disbelievers? Jesus is the Gate Keeper. Some people fear "Hell." Others fear separation from the Lord. "Narrow is the road" indeed.
Murder is not the same as Killing. The Almighty has hardwired us to defend ourselves AND family. Defending ourselves with lethal force is NOT premeditated murder. He know our heart in any case. JMO.
No it's not. The KJV is public domain so more appropriate to use when quoting multiple passages. In the Shakespearean lingo of the day "charity" was "love" to us. Just as britches are now pants:) Charity from the lexicon is 'agape' in the Greek: affection, good will, love, benevolence, brotherly love If you want to look at an interesting conversation between Jesus Christ and Peter go here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm? b=Jhn&c=21&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1018015 The above is a good tool for you to reference.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
That is not the issue. The issue are the ones that claim to relay Christ's words to us reliable scribes. There was quite a bit of time from when Christ actually spoke His words to when they were wriiten down. And most of the writting is not from firsthand interaction with Christ but via hearsay. Memories are fallible. Language is fallible. There has been more than ample opportunity for slippage from Christ's mouth to your and my ear. Christ also says thou shll not kill. So all those Christians that went to war in defense of their country are in Hell I rather doubt that. What exactly does "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." mean. Yes, Christ will judge us but exactly when? At the moment of our death? At the moment that we confront His judgement? Thomas didn't believe until Christ let him touch His wounds. And Thomas was an Apostle. I suspect that if Thomas rejected Christ after he touched His wounds Tom would be in a world of hurt rather than venerated. Well we all will get our chance to touch Christ's wounds. What then?
That's not hard to figure out. First we have the scriptures God revealed to us. Second Jesus Christ promised the Comfortor, The Holy Spirit to give us understanding.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Outta gas, gents. Thanks for the interesting, spirited debate.
You make my point. The meaning of words change over time, and usually a relatively short period of time. Thirty years ago gay meant happy, gleeful. What does it mean today? Worse yret, when it comes to scripture much of it is in dead languages. And for those that are still around the nuances of words have changed over time. One cannot be certain what the nuance of the word agape was two thousand years ago.
Thanks for the interesting, spirited debate. Fear not, there is likely plenty more to come.
I hear ya. If someone says different they are not being honest. See how the apostle Paul addresses the same matter in Romans 7: Romans 7 New King James Version (NKJV) 7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God— through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Jesus Christ gave us the game plan. If we call audibles, then we will be rushed, hurried, hit and maybe sacked. Stick with the Head Coach's game plan.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
I posed the question Jasper.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
That's easy. If we have the capacity to stop the shedding of innocent blood and do nothing about it, then we are guilty of that shed blood. So, if killing the nut protects innocent life we have a moral right to defend. Even in Luke 22 Jesus Christ allowed his disciples to have two swords between them for defense.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
All good points. Let's apply the "glory to God aspect" to your words above. Do people who do good works, and kind do so to glorify God? If not who or what is the object of their affection to do so? The poor? The human 'spirit'? A tax deduction? Or glory to self to feel good about doing something. Even garnering "favor" from God for one to justify one self to be in His presence? Who gets the glory, the praise from Ghandi's works and compassion? Auntie Maye working in the soup kitchen? We look to these wonderful works of love and compassion but where is that "energy" directed and for whose glory? If for The Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, then Amen! If not, it glorifies something or someone else other than God. Here is an example of a man and His household who did acts of mercy, were kind to others and prayed to God to do the right thing. It is a true story of a man who knew what God wanted, prayed for such but did not have Jesus as his savior. This man did not travel to Jerusalem to seek out an apostle to hear the Gospel. He prayed and his prayer pleased God. This man didn't even have to leave his home. God sent an apostle with an armed escort to his house to hear the Gospel! Here below is the story of our mystery man: Acts 10 New King James Version (NKJV) 10 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?” So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea.[a] He will tell you what you must do.” 7 And when the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier from among those who waited on him continually. 8 So when he had explained all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa. […………………………………………………………………………………………………………] 24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?” 34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they[e] killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Was ready to list out the verses, but found the below which addresses your questions: Further, we can take note of the following verses that demonstrate God’s plan to preserve His Word. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” In this verse Jesus declared that not even the smallest stroke of a letter in the Hebrew alphabet would pass away until all is accomplished. He couldn’t make that promise unless He was sure that God would preserve His Word. Jesus also said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). Jesus again affirms that God’s Word will not pass away. God’s Word will remain and accomplish that which God has planned. The prophet Isaiah, through the power of the Holy Spirit, stated that God’s Word would remain forever. “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). This was reaffirmed in the New Testament when Peter quoted the same passage and referred to it as “the word that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:24-25). Neither Isaiah nor Peter could make such statements without the understanding of God’s preservation of Scripture. More here: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Later Bro.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Hmmmm, so seeing the light will get you two $3 bills and one $8 bill in change? John 3:19
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Indeed.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
Imagine that! All that hearsay upon hearsay in God's Word has made it null and void. Soso brings up a very important question, and that asks, how long did the manuscripts last? Now, I have here in mind the originals, the autographs, but also the earliest copies. Well, in a recent study published in 2009, there was an analysis of 53 libraries from antiquity that have been recovered intact. And what I mean by that is, the entire library: the actual literature itself—the various books—as well as supporting documentation, private letters, and things like that. The entire collection was dumped at the same time. So when scholars were sifting through the dry sands of Egypt, or whatever the location is, all of these books were found together. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Let's see. I have one love letter from my sweetie, and I'm having trouble understanding what she means by the word "love." Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have 35,000 letters from her, and she used the word love in many of them.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Shouldn't that read "As if you would know"? /s
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
We've already taken a sharp turn into the bizarre with this latest incarnation, Saint Yucko, and his Merry Band of Canaries.
Nice post. And so good to see you over here. I can see my Escape From LP post/email to you was unneeded as you have an old account here already, apparently from LP's Banfest/Fundraiser 2009 episode.
I had an account long before 2009.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Not so. Read it again. Adam is told that if he eats of the fruit, he will die. Eve recounts to Satan that she has been told this too. They ate the fruit. God told Adam that he was dust (literally: powder), and to dust he would return. And Scripture tells us he did, dying at the age of about 930 (if I remember correctly). Scripture doesn't tell us when Eve died, though we can assume she did...unless she was one of the wives on the Ark, which seems exceedingly unlikely. So, God told them that if they ate the fruit they would die. And Scripture recounts the death of Adam. You, and tradition, say that God said that their progeny would die because of that. That is the way that man has explained death. But God never said that. Go read Genesis again. God never said: you shall die, and your children after you, if you eat the fruit. In fact, God never says that in Scripture. God says: the wages of sin is death. And all men sin. That is why you die: you die, because that is the death sentence for YOUR sins. Paul explained that death came into the world because of the sin of Adam, but we don't die because of HIS sin. We die because of OUR sins. Note well that innocent babies die because of sin too. Not because of THEIR sins, but because the sin that other men commit is murdering them. Abel pleased God with his offering, so Cain murdered him. Abel wasn't dying for his OWN sins - his death WAS the sin (one of the sins) of Cain. Those who die innocent of sin - babies and the like - have no sins to answer for at judgment, and Jesus said repeatedly and unwaveringly that men are judged by their DEEDS. No bad deeds, no personal sin. Anybody who has lived very long has personal sin, and so is under a sentence of physical death, which God will carry out. How does this link to Adam? Directly, but not because of a mystical taint of death that passes down in the blood. That is human tradition and it is not what God said. Rather, it has to do with something else that you said about human temptations. There are indeed human temptations, and they lead to sin. But what leads to many of these temptations are the living conditions of men, and these living conditions are NOT God's design. They have been imposed on man BY man, because of what man values. Remember, as creatures, we are designed by God to live naked and without jobs, in tropical environments where we eat fruit off the trees. We are designed to be intensely attracted to the other sex, and to fall in love and to begin to copulate and reproduce freely, starting very early. Remember teenage love, how intense it is? There is a sexual component, but there is, in early teenage years, a very intense love and attraction component. We are designed, by God, to ardently fall in love at age 12 and 13, to being to have sex at once, and to be intensely bound to that one person for the rest of our lives. THAT is our nature. Our ideas about economics and society are NOT natural too us. They are imposed ON us, not by God, but by owners and leaders and rulers ideas of economic and social order. Now, remember well, God does not give me the right to shed other men's blood, which means that it is not the natural order of man to dominate and rule other men. Men resist that, rightly, because we are NATURALLY designed, by God, to serve HIM, not to obey each other. The only way that men can compel other men to obey them and impose laws on them is by murdering some of them to instill fear in the others. Nimrod was the first Emperor. Others followed. They used force to establish "their" law, and maintained their (illegitimate) lawmaking power through the threat of force and the use of force. When they die, emperors are all unrepentant murderers, for not only do they kill men - which God forbids - but they have made an idol of themselves and their states such that they ignore God's prohibition and claim they have the RIGHT to, to uphold "the law". But where the law departs from God's law, it is domination, and evil, and when it is enforced by bloodshed and killing, the enforcer has broken a law of God and is a murderer. And if he believes he has the right to do so, he never repents, he SERVES another ideal - an idol - he dies unrepentant, and at judgment he is rejected and thrown into the flames. The social order of man is unnatural. It is not how God made us. It restrains and forces changes upon in against how God made us. So, when we're "resisting sexual immorality) at 25, it's not because God has made it hard. It's because MEN have made it hard. There shouldn't BE any sexual immorality, because we're SUPPOSED to be married and having sex at 12 and 13, with our intense teenage loves. And there is not supposed to be a highly structured system of economic domination over us that takes our God-given nature - to pair off very young and in love and breed - and replaces that with a serve-man, serve-money model, which is violent, idolatrous and very evil. We are so accustomed to thinking of the violent system of empire, law, order and finance as being "natural" that we fail to remember that we were not made for this in any way, and that it has been imposed on us, by some men, whom God never gave the right to do so. OF COURSE, if we live in structures that are not godly, serving things God told us not to, and repress our actually God-given natures, we're going to end up violent, sad, sullen, sex-twisted freaks. It isn't GOD who made a mess of us, it's MEN who did. The wages of THEIR sins ARE our death, but not because of a taint in the blood - because of the actual physical conditions they imposed on us. Adam and Eve ate fruit without effort. They tended the garden, because that was their "job", but they enjoyed doing it. What happened with their sin is that they were put out of the garden and had to make clothes (a major effort). God cursed the ground - now it was hard to make it grow food, and the food wasn't pleasant), and now childbirth was painful and even deadly. Just the economic situation of having to spend hours growing food, and making clothes - this reduced man's happiness, and THOSE economic conditions continued, and posed a challenge to men from Adam to the Flood (God removed the curse on the ground through the Flood, so the ground is no longer cursed). Look what MEN did in reaction. Consider carefully: Hevel (Abel) used the natural human mastery of animals, before men ate animals and animals had the fear of us on them, to herd sheep. He didn't eat their meat but he drank their milk (that was what he offered to God as his gift). And he probably used their wool for clothing. So, it was still possible for men to live relatively pleasant lives even under the restrained economic conditions of the ex-Eden world. Cain grew his food and offered that - grudgingly. God wasn't interested in Cain's offering because of the way it was offered (not, as some said, because it was grain: a daily grain offering was DEMANDED by God in Torah). Cain murdered Abel in a cold and calculated act of spite. He didn't fly off the handle and kill Abel on the spot. He called his brother out into the field and killed him, out of spite. Soon we see violence growing in Genesis. We also see polygamy - enforced by fear - appear with Lamech, who warns his wives that he is not to be taken lightly because he's a killer. When God decides on the Flood, he says why: violence, everywhere. The economic conditions of Eden were ideal for man, that's what we were designed for. But even after Eden we had it well enough. Jealousy, rage and lust: two wives, then more. Is THAT really our nature? No. It isn't. Every one of us remembers first falling in love, as a teenager. That endless, aching desire just to be WITH that other person. It wasn't even sexual, it was the desire for the bond, the companionship. All of THAT is natural, and in its first blush, it is SUPPOSED to be able to be swiftly reciprocated, such that the teen boy and teen girl fall in love, couple, and begin producing children. And that young love, strong love, NATURAL love is meant to last for life - and often DOES, when it is allowed to happen. THAT is how we are designed. We men do not PERMIT it. It makes a mess of our economic plans. It makes a mess of the educational structures we have designed in order to prepare men to be cogs in the gears of other men's economic plans. To keep our NATURES, which are GOOD, in check we impose harsh rules and violent laws, and we DO mostly stay in check. And then our nature, restrained, chafes at the restrain and becomes perverted, through unnatural use. We hear it said that masturbation is a sin, and we marvel: how could God be so cruel to command us to act against our natures! You would level the charge. But God isn't commanding us against our natures. Our NATURE is to take that sexual urge and couple with the girl we're in love with at 13, and she do the same, and to bond for life, THEN. If teenagers were marrying at 12 and 13, as God DESIGNED US, they would be being fruitful and multiplying, as we were designed by God, and they wouldn't be masturbating or committing any of the other sexual sins at all. In societies where they actually DO pair off very young, there are usually large families and lifelong bonds. Because that's our nature, and when permitted to express itself as God made it, we DON'T actually have sexual sin, because we don't need it or want it. It's only when we are twisted into pretzels through unnatural, man-made structures, structures which can only survive through constant and unlimited threats of death (which man never has the authority to mete out to other men, other than for murder), that sexual sin, and violence, and lies, and all of the other sins emerge. And yet we read so-called religious philosophers treat these great groaning human idols as though THEY are the natural state of man. They are not. Original sin? It exists: what Adam and Eve did removed humanity from Eden, and thereby imposed additional challenges on us all that are hard - food and clothing alone are burdens of time and labor, and require cooperation with other men. Their sin greatly complicates our lives. Some men accepted the reality and operated within the straightened world: Hevel did. Others become perverse and seek to dominate other men to force THEM to do the crap work. Nimrod, for example. But a taint in the blood, that works independently and causes men to die directly because of Adam's sin - "Original Sin" as you understand the word? - it does not exist. God never said it did. It's not in the Bible. We do not die because Adam died. We died because of our personal sins - or because somebody else's personal sin kills us (Hevel died as the result of Cain's sin). If we are spotless, we don't die when we are killed, for our spirit goes on and ultimately will go into the City. Physical death is one death, but the death of the spirit is the final death. Because of our personal sins, we die physical death. We don't die physical death directly because of something we inherited from Adam's personal sin. We die physical death because of our own personal sin, or because we're murdered in somebody else's sin. The effect of Adam's personal sin is to thrust us out of the Garden and place us into a world where living is hard, and the hardness of living has caused men over the generations to build up a bigger and bigger fist of violence and domination and law and idolatry to money and power, that then occasions our personal sin. So yes, in THAT sense Adam's sin kills us. But ONLY in that sense. There is nothing inherent in our blood that kills us. "Original Sin" as a taint of the blood was devised, not from Scripture, but as a logic exercise to try to explain WHY baptism is necessary for salvation. We're told it is, but that's all we're told. Men want ANSWERS. Scripture tells us about forgiveness of sins, but Christians have always baptized babies and children too, so they haven't committed any sin...so why baptize? "Original sin" as a taint coming down from Adam is what was made up to explain what "sin" baptism washes off of babies. And you know, IF we were Jews, it would be true. For sex and blood make a person unclean before God. And what that meant, in Israel, was that a man or woman could not participate in the ritual sacrifices at the altar. So, if a man had an emission of semen, however it happened (alone, or in regular sex with his wife) he was unclean until evening and could not participate in the rites. A woman was unclean throughout her period and for a time afterwards until she took her mikvah - mikvah is the Hebrew word which we would translate as baptism if it were in a Christian context, but which we would translate as bath in any other context. John the Baptist was giving people mikvah in the Jordan for forgiveness of sins. The unclean who had touched bodies had to have a mikvah outside of the camp in the lustral water (from the ashes of the red heifer - in other words: soap and water). Those who were covered in blood, such as women after periods or women and babies after childbirth, required a mikvah to be cleansed, not just physically, but from ritual impurity. Baptism for cleanliness is throughout the Torah. The Christian variant of it is easier: it's not repeated. It's once. But God never explains WHY. He doesn't explain it in the Torah, and he doesn't explain it in the Gospel either. So men have made up a reason. Some say that it's to wash away personal sin. That's what John the Baptist's mikvah was, but Jesus didn't say that was what his was. Those who say that oppose infant baptism because they say, correctly, that infants have no personal sin. Of course, they incorrectly assert that the "purpose" of baptism is to wash away PERSONAL sin. God never said that. Conversely, traditionalists such as Catholics have made up the doctrine that there's a mysterious taint in the blood that comes down from Adam, and that baptism washes away this "Original Sin", and that indeed it's necessary to follow their cultural tradition of baptizing babies, because otherwise the baby will die in sin and may be rejected by God for that sin. Both of these doctrines are made up. God said neither. God said that everybody needs a mikvah. He did not say why. We don't know why. Paul seems to say that we inherit death in the blood because of Adam's sin, but that isn't what Paul actually says, if you read him closely. And nowhere does God ever say that we physically die because Adam ate the fruit. Never once does it say that. The whole doctrine has been made up by men to try to EXPLAIN something, about baptism, that God didn't explain. Men can fight about these made up things if they want to, but when they do, they're just piling tradition on tradition, none of which came from God (UNLESS one believes that God gave these traditions outside of Scripture - but in no case do we have any saint or prophet standing up and declaring "God told me thus and so", so no, these traditions did NOT come out of God's mouth. Next, we'll hear that God chose leaders, and that the heirs of those leaders were given the power by God to reveal such things. Those heirs ALSO killed other saints of God, so obviously whatever power of leadership was given, does not go nearly as far as is claimed. Truth is: we don't know a lot of things. Baptism, we know we're supposed to do. And trying to devise a tortured argument that Baptism has something to do with removing a taint in the blood from Adam is ridiculous. How so? Baptized people die anyway. If the taint was the death sentence, then baptism would remove that. It doesn't. So it wasn't. Christians will fight endlessly over the sanctity of their doctrines, and will hurl around charges of heresy. It's bullshit when they do it, it's what the Pharisees did. The answer is that you look at what God said, and you do that. Why? Because that is what GOD said to do. "Man lives on every word THAT PROCEEDS FORTH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD" - Jesus. "If you love me, you will do as I say." - Jesus. "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you don't do as I say?" - Jesus It does nobody any good at all to not do what Jesus said. What Jesus said to do is hard enough. Adding to it in order to fight is bad. But then using energy fighting and refusing to even do the minimum - that's worse. One can question to clear away the thicket and get at God. That's what I'm working on in these writings, clearing the thicket. OR one can question in order to increase the thicket, to satisfy one's self that it's not possible to answer the questions, or know anything, and therefore justify doing whatever one pleases. That is common. Everybody decides for himself what he's going to do or not do, and why, on any given day. God leaves men free to do this personally, but he places a lot of constraints on the degree to which men can impose their wills on other men. Men cannot stand THOSE rules, because they mean that men would have to do a lot more work directly for themselves that they don't want to do - AND that they don't want to pay for either. So that's the drama. My views: focus on what God left us, so you're sure he IS. Then focus on what GOD said HIMSELF - not what men said that God meant - both in the Bible and without - and then follow God. Where what the men said is helpful, embrace it. Where what the men said and wrote is not helpful, ignore it. Where what the men said is actually opposed to what God said, ignore that too, but then correct other men when they seek to impose that on men. There are contradictions in Scripture, but there are no contradictions in what Jesus, himself (only himself) said. You start with what he said LAST, because that's when all is fully revealed. And then you move backwards. Or you spare yourself the trouble and accept the basic summary we've already seen a few times (no need to repeat it here). If the problem is that you have trouble believing that God IS, then he left artifacts that prove it. Go look at them. If the problem is that you really don't know what God WANTS, then read HIS words in Scripture. To save yourself time, just read Jesus, starting with Revelation (not the images, but what he actually SAYS, before and after the images), and then go read what he said in the Gospels. And stop. Jesus is the way. Ignore the rest of Scripture and all of the Churches and just fix your eyes on Jesus and what he himself SAID, and DO THAT, and you're fine, as far as eternal life and passing judgment goes. (You won't be fine with other men, who will seek to establish their dominance over you by insisting you ALSO believe THEIR doctrines about what Jesus MEANT. Jesus MEANT what he SAID. So read that and ignore the other men. Sometimes this may mean ignoring Paul too, because Paul wrote in a certain way to certain audiences, about conversations that were already had, and in private correspondence to boot. Some of what Paul says about belief appears to contradict what Jesus said about being judged on deeds. Jesus is God. Paul isn't. You can spend a lot of time convincing yourself Paul doesn't REALLY conflict (and he doesn't), or you can spare yourself and ignore Paul and listen to Jesus. You cannot go wrong doing what Jesus said, but you can go wrong doing what anybody else says if it makes you not do something Jesus said. Jesus is Lord for you, nobody else. If your problem is trying to make all of the vast body of material make sense, then first cut to the chase and do what Jesus said, and spend your leisure time trying to work out the puzzle. Or ignore it. It doesn't matter anyway to YOU. YOU are going to pass judgment, or not, based on how well you followed Jesus. If your problem is that other men are imposing, arrogant, tell you nonsense, and really annoy you with all their prattling and preachiness...well, welcome to the human race. (And if it REALLY bothers you THAT MUCH, then resist the urge to write to ME about these things, because I always write back). Up thread, I told folks that their wide ranging questions required a thoughtful response. I've given most of those responses in the past few posts, but I guess I should close the door here. BECAUSE we don't inherit physical death from Adam, Jesus' death was not, for us Gentiles, about making an offering for us. The offerings and redemptions and sacrifices were for Jews, and Jesus did what he did within the Jewish system, to satisfy requirements of it, and close the books on the Jewish sacrifices, to fulfill and complete them before pulling down the Temple and destroying the altar forever. What Jesus means to us Gentiles is that death is not the end, we live forever IF we follow him. To follow him, we have to do what HE said, which is generally at odds with what the world says (and sometimes with what we WANT). Do that, and when we die, we get to live. Tribe and sacrifice have nothing to do with it. It's one on one, none of our tribes mean anything to God, and we're not judged by tribe but by deed. We don't have to become Jews to follow Jesus, and in fact we can ignore everything about the Jews, as long as we follow Jesus. If we ignore the Jews, we won't understand many things Jesus talks about, because HE has to complete a specific law given by YHWH to the Jews, but that law was to the Jews and for the Jews, and never had anything to do with Gentiles, and still doesn't. Prediction: I've just told a lot of men that key parts of their theologies are wrong. I've said that the wrongness is IRRELEVANT, as long as they do what Jesus SAID, but men will press further and not simply listen to Jesus on how to be acceptable to him, they will insist that their traditions are also part of the highest truth, and must be accepted, and that I'm an agent of Lucifer if I say otherwise, and all sorts of other accusations that will not be respectful. It's all been done before. When Jesus is the subject, Gabbatha is never far away. Jesus IS the subject. Read him, and base all of your beliefs and laws on him ALONE, and you will be doing well. Dilute him with others, and you may know more, but when you start convincing yourself that the easier paths proposed by others are "just as true" as what Jesus said, because "they were his apostles", you've lost the trail. The Apostles sometimes did contradict Jesus. And whenever they did, they were wrong by definition. Don't get wrapped around the axle. There is one leader. Follow HIM. Not me. And not some other guy who will certainly be less respectful of you than I am. He and I both "know it all", but the difference is that he says "Listen to HIM!", but I say "Listen to JESUS" and point to HIS words. That's the law, and there's not very much of it. If you want a "Just Jesus" synopsis, that just contains the words spoken by Christ with a little bit of surrounding text for contextual framework, in the order he said what he said, in a "concordant" format (such that the same Greek word is always translated by the same English word, and no single English word is used to translate two different Greek words) so that you can see the full nuance of difference but also the same terminology across the texts, then ask and I will send it to you. Study what Jesus said, Just Jesus, day after day. There's no much of it, and some is hard. But remember what Jesus said about sin: if you want to be forgiven it by God, then forgive men. And of all of your sins and flaws, the one to work on the most is being bitter and unyielding and unforgiving of other men, because you have sins as we all do, and the only way you're going to be forgiven those sins is if you forgive other men. THAT part: the YOU doing the very thing for other men you don't like that you want GOD to do for YOU, is not optional or negotiable. If you sin much but you forgive much, you will be forgiven much. But if you sin little love little and judge harshly, you've probably doomed yourself. Jesus told you that YOU set the standards of your OWN judgment. If YOU are an unyielding, judgmental bastard, that's the standard by which you shall be judged. Jesus promised it. So, if you are one, then understand that your approach is going to get you damned, by your own hand, and repudiate your stupidity, back down from your belief in your own rectitude, and be lenient. You want God to be lenient with you, yes? You've said that God is cruel for judging us harshly for sins if our nature doesn't let us stop. Yes, he WOULD BE, but that's not the standard he set. He said that he will judge you according to the standards by which YOU judged other men their sins against you. So, we were talking about sexual sins. All men have them. Men who are judgmental prigs about the sexual sins of others are simply men who think their secrets are safe. What they have done is set a standard of judgment for themselves that will be God being as unyielding and unforgiving of THEIR sexual sins as THEY have been of other men's. You are judged by the measure by which YOU judged. Jesus promised that - which is GOOD NEWS if you're lenient. But it means you have damned yourself to death in hell if you are a harsh, stern, judgmental and unyielding prick when it comes to others. As YOU judge, you SHALL be judged. That's Jesus' promise to the lenient, and threat to the unyielding. So if you're unyielding, yield. Back down. Soften. Be lenient. Harshness will get you little good in life. In the afterlife, it will get you damned. Jesus promised that. So be lenient.
I posed the question Jasper. Which needed refienment, if not context.
ping to 127. I hope this illustrates my point. What if half of her letters used like (or sunstitute any other word that may hace the nuance of love) instead of love?
I believe that vicomte13 has a different take. His take on Thou Shall Not Kill is that Scripture tells us that God tells us not the shed blood, which may include killing, murder, maiming, etc.. Things are not as neat as you state.
No, not null and void but open to questions of fidelity.
And the answer is.................
Did God originally create Adam to be physically immortal?
We do know what agape means. We have generations since the Resurrection using the same words even when the language progresses.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
I have to thank you for your post. I have never been satisfied that I was adequately articluating my point on why I believe that Scripture, while may be necessry, is not sufficient as its fidelity is open to question. You have given me a means to improve upon stating my position. So here it is. Why do you know that your sweetie loves you? It's becuase she told you herself. She told you face to face while looking into your eyes and holding your hand. You heard her say the words I Love You directly to you and she probably said other words to you with the nuance of the meaning of love on many other occasions. She did not send one of her firends to tell you that she loves you or another one to tell you that she really cares for you a lot or yet another one to tell you that she really likes you or another yet to tell you that she wants to be with you. She did it herself, not through hearsay from a less than perfect proxy. Now had she sent her emmisaries to deliver their nuanced messages of her love for you, you may have found that very comforting and encouraging. You even may act upon those messages. But until you heard it directly from her, until she herself touched your soul there was always a bit of unertainty. Thomas needed to touch Jesus' wounds to seal the deal for Thomas and he had plenty of personal contact with Jesus prior to that and still doubted. Jesus touches our lives in many ways. For some it may be Scripture. But IMO if that is the only way a person knows the presence of God in his life it is lacking in substance, it is an incomplete relationship - it is a relationship based on hearsay. It is much more assuring if you hear/feel God communicating to you Himself that He loves you. That's it.
That's it. The very evidence The Father loves us. He gave us Jesus Christ: John 3: 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
God said to the HEBREWS on Sinai: "You shall not kill". He never said that to the rest of us. What he said to the rest of us was, first "Do not shed man's blood. He who sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed." And then, Jesus, at the end, said that murderers do not enter the City. Murderers. Distinctions of killing and murder, and vengeance, and trial procedures - those were all laws laid down specifically for God in the Constitution of the only state that he ever ruled directly as King: ancient Israel. And they were all predicated, all of them, on DO THIS, and YOU GET A FARM." "You shall not kill", given at Sinai, given only to Hebrews at Sinai, along with a bunch of judicial laws and rules as to what killing was - the entirety of that - was a rule for that people, in that time, and it never applied to anybody else. For the only reward ever offered to the Hebrews under the law - if they didn't kill, or commit adultery, and did everything as told at Sinai, was that they would live securely and prosperously and be fertile and have families on their own farm in Israel. That is it. That is ALL. God never said one word about the afterlife, or judgment, or life after death, or the soul, to the Hebrews at Sinai. The man who followed the WHOLE JEWISH LAW was not "saved" from anything. If he wasn't a Jew, he got nothing. There was no promise of anything, except for circumcised members of the Hebrew community, and the ONLY THING God EVER promised them for obeying the law of Sinai was a FARM. THAT is the Mosaic Covenant..."Do not kill (or any of the other stuff), and you'll live in peace on your own farm in Israel." THAT was the reward that God promised the Israelites. He never said a thing - not one thing - about what happens to any Israelite's spirit or soul after that person dies. Nothing. The "Old Covenant" with the Jews, was a direct promise: obey these conditions and you get a farm, in this particular land, during your physical life. God never said one single word about life after death, or judgment, or going to Heaven, in the Old Covenant with the Jews. Nowhere in the Torah is there a whiff of it. SO, you as a Gentile, watching your family being attacked, what law did God give to YOU? He NEVER commanded YOU, or any ancestor you ever had, "Thou shall not kill." That law was for Jews. Nobody else. He said "Do not shed man's blood", coupled with "He who sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed." Is the man who is aiming to kill your family shedding man's blood? Yes. Then God has COMMANDED you to shed his blood. If you sit by and do nothing, you are not obeying God's command to punish - by bloodshed of the perpetrator - his crimes. Further, at the last Supper Jesus told his disciples that they'd been free from attack during his life, so he had sent them out unarmed, but now that he was leaving they had to sell their extra cloak and buy a sword. Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves, with swords, so that they could defend themselves violently if need be. Jesus not only did not command his followers to not shed blood, he commanded his followers to arm themselves so that they would be ready TO shed blood, in their own defense, if necessary. If somebody is attacking your family, you are the good shepherd of that family: God ordered all men to shed the blood of men who shed blood - bloodshed must be repaid by bloodshed: that is God's COMMANDMENT to Noah and mankind in general. (He ruled Israel directly and had special laws for Israel, the reward for obedience of which was a farm, for Jews, in Israel - UNTIL Jesus pronounced the doom on Israel; now there's not even THAT.)(Oh, and the law of Israel merely provided a PROCEDURE for shedding the blood of those who shed blood, to be sure it is just.) Finally, on the last page of the Bible Jesus twice said that MURDERERS do not enter the City of God after judgment, but are thrown into the fire. MURDERERS are men who kill others without justification. So, we have three pieces of non-Israelite reference: (1) Men must shed the blood of those men who shed blood - God, to Noah and his sons, speaking of MAN, not of just them. (2)Jesus commanded his followers to arm to defend themselves. (3) Jesus said twice that murderers - specifically - will be damned to the flames. The law God gave the Israelites doesn't depart from these principles at all. It's useful to read it because of the greater detail that God gives to the people under his direct civil governance. But before we dive into that detail we have to stop short and remind ourselves over and over: NOTHING IN THE LAW OF MOSES EVER APPLIED TO ANYBODY BUT HEBREWS IN ISRAEL. Nothing. Not. One. Word. Yes, there are laws in there that ALSO apply to the whole world, but God didn't reveal those laws TO the world THROUGH Israel. He revealed those laws either through Noah and his sons (remember, all of humanity was concentrated on that one boat, were all related, and all got the law delivered to them much more personally than the Hebrews did, sprawled out in a million-person camp at the foot of a mountain with only one or two guys speaking to him). We have to remember that because otherwise we end up saying that we have to, or are PERMITTED to, say, burn witches at the stake because God commanded the Israelites to kill witches, so we know that he approves. But actually, God ONLY gave permission to the Israelites to do that, in his land. For US, he commanded not to shed blood, not to murder. Killing a witch if you're not in ancient Israel under God's direct rule is MURDER. The ancient Sanhedrin who ordered a witch killed were doing right. The medieval bishop's court that ordered a witch burnt, and everybody who burnt here, were murderers who themselves will likely be burnt in the lake of fire. If you are going to pick up the tools of violence, you had damned well better UNDERSTAND God's law. Because you will be held accountable for that killing. The law of Israel confuses people, much in the same way that Paul confuses people on some central facts. For that very reason, it is most important to read exactly what GOD said DIRECTLY, himself and through Jesus. THAT IS THE LAW. And under THAT law, you MUST intervene to save your family, if you shed the would-be killer's blood, you have done justice. Of course, if you go off half cocked, make up a threat that's not there, and blow away a lost kid who wandered into your garage because you're a nutjob with a hairtrigger who imagines threats, then you're just a murderer and are going to the fire at judgment, probably. God sees hearts. If you're so overwrought that you fear everything and strike to kill, then you need to get help. Because remember: COWARDS are also thrown into the fire. God damns COWARDS as well as killers. So, if you violently stop this killer from killing your family, and you have good reason - reason that would stand up to honest witnesses - to believe that you are saving their lives, defending them and yourself, then you have done right: who have shed the blood of the bloodshedder, you have been the good shepherd that has killed the lion. But if you're unreasonably afraid, and just shoot somebody who is near your family on suspicion, because "you know how things go", then you're a murderer, and damned, or if he actually lives, you may be damned anyway, for shedding a man's life out of your own cowardice. Remember, God damns both murderers AND cowards to the fire: both. Why cowards? Because he who would preserve his life will lose it. Men who make an idol out of biological life lack faith. They do not remember that flesh is grass, and death comes to all, but life goes on. We are spirits in a body, and the spirit is our life. We do what is right, and if that exposes us to danger such that we die, then we die. But before we go out there shedding blood in our headstrong arrogance, because we have convinced ourselves that "we have the right" by our human legal logic, we have to remember that OUR human logic doesn't count for shit in the court of God, that God gave specific directions and commandments, and that man will be judged on God's law alone. A bishop and 60 clergy of the courts of northern France tried and sentenced Joan of Arc to be burnt alive for carrying out the instructions she heard from God. They did this because she upset their political applecart and overthrew a government they preferred, with much loss of life among the conquerors they preferred. They used the legal system to extract revenge. They believed themselves in the right, for surely God would not favor the other side, and her voices could not be proven, so she must be a witch. And witches must die. Except that if anybody but the ancient Israelite Sanhedrin killed a witch, the killers were murderers God will throw into the lake of fire. Nobody outside of ancient Israel had the right to kill any witch. The problem for those clergymen who damned themselves to the flames by sending Joan of Arc to the flames is simple: they committed murder. They used their power to murder a woman they hated, on the grounds that she was a witch. Had they tried her on the grounds that she killed people, they would have also have had to try their own reigning nobility and every soldier in their own army, and they did not think that way. God does, by HIS law, but those men didn't. This is the problem of trying to force man's law down on top of God's. When it's done, it's ALWAYS to give men GREATER leeway than God gives, and it often plays around with those very things that God has warned will result in the fire of hell. Men cannot authorize other men to get a pass out of hell for doing men's bidding. And when men are faced with the problem of those orders, God commands them to be courageous, and warns that cowardice buys hell just as surely as killing. Sometimes to protect life, you have to kill. That's not murder under God's law, but it may well be under human law. Conversely, sometimes to obey human commanders and laws you are ordered to do things that you must defy in order to not break God's law. You can kill to stop the shedding of innocent blood, and if you can stop the shedding of innocent blood, you must do so - if you hang back and refuse to do it to protect your own reputation, you're a coward. But you don't have to throw your life away in a hopeless attack either. Human laws of order do not trump God's law, and God gave you a head to use. There should be no crisis of conscience when a man is watching his wife and children endangered by a nutso, because God's law is clear: you intervene, forcefully, and you stop the killing. If you don't because you think that God prohibits that, then you have bought a load of bull taught to you by idiot men. God only said four things to YOU about killing: You are not to go out looking for shedding blood. You are not to murder. You ARE to defend yourself, and you ARE to shed the blood of those who shed blood. Don't be a coward. That's it. That's the law. Murderers and cowards are thrown into the fire. Defend yourself and punish killers. That's God's law. It's unambiguous. And if you take any part of God's specific law for the Jews in Israel and use that law, which does not apply to you, to try to override or weasel out of God's short, stern, clear law for YOU, you're doing it wrong. And whoever tells you otherwise can't read.
If anythnig you are certainly thorough.
I guess that I still haven't made my point well. And exactly how do you, I or anyone know that God gave us Jesus? Through third party written words or through personally revealing His presence to us?
While I was His enemy Christ died for me. That is love.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
While I was His enemy Christ died for me. That is love. When were you ever Christ's enemy?
1 John 5:10 (AMP) 10 He who believes in the Son of God [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] has the testimony [possesses this divine attestation] within himself. He who does not believe God [in this way] has made Him out to be and represented Him as a liar, because he has not believed (put his faith in, adhered to, and relied on) the evidence (the testimony) that God has borne regarding His Son. . Is God a liar?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
You are getting a little slippery here, Gary. "He who believes in the Son of God [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] has the testimony [possesses this divine attestation] within himself." Is God a liar? Of course not. I am surprised that you are still asking.
The point being do you believe His testimony?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
Don't know. Can't know. God didn't say. Perhaps if a man never sins, and is never killed by somebody else committing a sin (or killed through the agency of somebody else's sin (e.g.: somebody pouring mercury in the waters)), then we might not die. But we all sin, and so we all die. The "hard case" might appear to be children with birth defects who die before they can sin. But if one explores each birth defect, one may very well find a human agency there, with the defect the product of disease or problem that resulted from human agency. Certainly people who live around toxic dumps have more defects - the babies didn't sin, but like Abel, they were really killed by somebody else's sin. No way to know for sure. Just as there is no way to know for certain that you will in fact die. The world may end first. Or you might not. Chances are, though, that if you're able to contemplate this sort of thing, you've already committed a mortal sin. And the reason you "had" to was because of the dysfunctional and sinful structures of our society working against our natures. God made up his mind about the physics long ago, and he's not going to change it. So if our social and legal and governmental structures force us all onto a path that inevitably leads to mortal sin, and death, then we have to see that - just as we have with cigarette smoking - and take the painful step of changing the way we choose to do business, choose to govern ourselves, choose to have laws. If we do that, we may be able to relax the human-imposed strictures that funnel us all down the chute of mortal sin. And if we don't sin, maybe we won't die, and maybe we will. The Scripture does not ever say that there is anything intrinsically different between us and Adam that would have caused HIM to live forever if he hadn't sinned, but which causes us to die regardless. It only tells us that the wage of sin is death. If you've already sinned, you're going to die physically. Until Jesus, that was a disaster. It was Jesus' new covenant that gave the second chapter and told us that death is not so bad after all, that more and better awaits the good. God doesn't change the physics: you sin, you die, BUT he showed the second act. And THAT is why Jesus had to die - in order to be resurrected, to demonstrate the very good new that death ain't nuthin' but a thing. To the extent that we are excessively concerned about death and think that it's a disaster to be held off at all cost - that in itself is idolatry, causing us to serve the flesh and forget that flesh is grass and that if we're brave, good - and forgiving - once we get flesh BACK, we get to keep it and live with God. Some say this is not human nature. I am human, I understand it perfectly well. So yes, it IS human nature to be able to see it, understand it, and act on it. Humans who resist this truth are idolators, refusing to accept the good news and CHOOSING to treat flesh as though it were more important than it is. Idolators fail final judgment. To find your life, you have to lose it. Cowardice results in damnation. Refusing to repent results in damnation. Refusing to forgive results in damnation. Idolatry results in damnation. So don't do any of those things. Be brave: they can't DO anything to you but kill you, and flesh is grass anyway. They can't really kill you: Jesus proved it. THAT's the good news, and the purpose of the crucifixion and the resurrection - and that's WHY God left the Shroud of Turin as the specific, most remarkable of all of the artifacts, to commemorate THAT VERY EVENT - the horrible death AND the miracle of the resurrection. Which means divinity. Which means you can trust what HE said. I just repeat what HE said. It's a good deal. It's good news. Words are wind and flesh is grass, but wind is spirit, so keep the spirit and follow the words of Jesus - Just Jesus - and you will come through. And you MIGHT not even die. God MIGHT forgive you your sins and let you just keep on living. Of course, after time, as you knew that for certain, that flesh would become a hell of a burden. For the longer the miracle continued, the more you'd realize it WAS a miracle...and then all of a sudden immortality would look like a curse. WHY is the wage of sin death? Pretty obvious, really. Once man gets a taste for sin, that sin becomes practically irresistible. But God doesn't change his mind any more than men do, and God is the King and judge - men are just insubordinate, corrupt and violent soldiers, bad cops, crooked judges. Eventually there's an accounting, and Gehenna, and various dispositions. But if there were no death, men would marinate in their sins forever, until the end of the world. Imagine the horror if men just kept springing back to life and could not be permanently killed. Then man could never escape the cruelty of man, and a man could be tortured to death a thousand times to rise and face it a thousand times more, for as long as another immortal man hated him. Death is a punishment, but it is also a strange gift. It cuts off Satan, by removing the flesh from the spirit. For Satan puts his hooks in the flesh, but the spirit CAN be cleansed. Jesus said how. Lots of men have said how too, but what men say is often quite different from what Jesus said. Jesus said that if you sin, and if you want to be forgiven, then you have to forgive other men their sins against you. To the extent you forgive other men, God will forgive you. To the extent you hold other men accountable to you for their debts, God will hold you accountable to them for theirs. Some men say that you don't have to do anything, because Jesus' death "redeemed" you. Redeption fits within the sequence of Jewish sacrifices - which have nothing to do with Gentiles and never did. Men say that nevertheless, Jesus' death is all that does it. But JESUS says that men are judged by their deeds, and that if men want to be forgiven, they have to forgive. Jesus is right. Some men say that men have to say certain prayers and go through certain rituals to be forgiven their sins. Jesus said that God will forgiven men's sins if they forgive men their sins, but that God won't forgive men who don't forgive. Once again there is a conflict. And once again, Jesus is Lord, and therefore right, and the men who say otherwise are wrong. Some men say that men have to become religious zealots to be forgiven their sins. They say that Jesus said to be perfect, and that therefore men have to perfectly follow the rules of religion. These men are half right: Jesus said to be perfect, and men do have to perfectly follow the rules. But then men propose a bunch of rules that Jesus didn't say. Jesus said be perfect, do this and don't do that, but included in the rule is the rule that says that God will forgive your breaking the rules if, and to the extent that, you forgive other men breaking the rules. We all have free will. We all choose what we believe, and what we're going to do about it. Read what Jesus said: keep your eyes on HIM, and ignore the rest, and you'll have a pretty simple, even threadbare, religion. It will be hard and not very colorful. And you'll pass judgment and go into the City at the end - and there it will make a whole lot more sense.
I didn't miss anything: the forgive to be forgiven, and you will be measured by the measured with which you measured comes directly from the mouth of Christ in the Gospel.
The point being do you believe His testimony? Of course. I received and accpeted His testimony from the Holy Ghost as a gift from God. Now, I have answered every one of your questions, yet you do not answer mine. Why is that?
Jesus never sinned yet He did die. But you really go along way around the barn to use logic not to come up the the most logical conclusion that God did indeed create Adam and Eve to be physically immortal. You can conclude this because God said to them that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. If God intend from the beginning that Adma and Eve to physically die at so time, presumably to be transformed into an after life with with Him, why would He have created the flesh to begin with? Yeah, I know God works in mysterious ways and we mortals can't know the Mind of God. As soon as any of us applies human logic, human reasoning to describe or understand God we fail in that endeavor and are left to our own devices.
Yeh.
I have no doubt he's not religious he's just trying to make religious people out to be a hypocrites while trying to portray himself as a saint, talk about a legend in his own mind.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
But you really go along way around the barn to use logic not to come up the the most logical conclusion that God did indeed create Adam and Eve to be physically immortal. You can conclude this because God said to them that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. Jesus was MURDERED, which is not the same thing as just dying from natural mortality. Adam and Eve, or you or I - being IMMORTAL doesn't mean we can't be killed by lightning or drowning or poisoning, or get cancer from exposure to plutonium. It would mean that our bodies would not age and wear out on their own, causing us to die of old age if nothing killed us sooner. And maybe if we didn't sin, we wouldn't age and die. This proposition is difficult to test, because we've sinned. One proposition that is not so difficult to test is that notion that "Original Sin" is the sentence to die because of Adam's sin, that Adam lost his immortality because he sinned, and that THAT is this "Original Sin". If THAT were really true, then if baptism washed away "Original Sin", then people who were baptized would be immortal, because their sins, including Original Sin, were all washed away. Truth is, we may very well STILL be immortal, each of us, right now (if we ever were), because Scripture does not say that Adam incurred inheritable Original Sin for eating the apple. All that God said is "If you eat of it, you will die." He did, and he did. Nothing says that Adam would not have eventually been killed by something else - probably not, because he was in God's garden and the animals were tame and the humans had dominion. Nothing says that they wouldn't have aged. Tradition says that, but Adam and Eve in the garden, and their original condition, is only a few sentences long. Nor does anything in the Scripture tell you that if a man is born and grows up and never sins, that he will die of natural causes. Nothing there says that man must die of natural causes. What God DOES say is that certain sins are deadly. He'll kill you for them. And he does. Lots of passages (none of them spoken by God directly) say that all men sin. That's probably right: all men DO, and there are at least two reasons for that; conditions are bad, and we do have active, aggressive and intelligent enemies: Satan and demons, aggressively pushing us to do bad things and die. Now, if Original Sin really meant the removal of immortality, then if baptism really removes Original Sin (as some men tell themselves), then the baptized man who never sins again is immortal...but when he commits a mortal sin, then he's back on the cycle of degradation and death. Want to live forever in the flesh? Then be perfect and don't sin and you very well might...except that somebody else will kill you, or an accident will intervene, but that's not mortality, that's getting killed. Mortality is wearing out and dying of natural causes that are not externally inflicted. Query as to whether terrible environmental conditions are themselves deadly things ways by which sinful men inadvertently kill other men. The problem with the concept of Original Sin, that Adam did something that taints the blood and causes us to die, is that God never said anything like that. To the Jews, he said that men were punished for THEIR sins, not the sins of their fathers. Of course that was a principle of Jewish law and doesn't directly apply to anybody else (but it shows you how God thinks). To us, he said that if you sin, God pays you with death. The good news is that it's just physical death, and just for a time. It's logical to assume that Adam and Eve were immortal, and that sin is what killed them. And it is equally logical to assume that the identical thing is true of every man or woman ever born. YOU were immortal, but you sinned, so now you're under a death sentence. Same with your wife, children, everybody. The case of Jesus tells us that an immortal sinless man can STILL be MURDERED - immortality is not superhuman. It is not logical to assume that Adam's sin created a taint in the blood that passes. It's not logical to assume it because God never said it. We die because we sin, not because he sinned. That's what God said, and THAT is logical. Now, it may be that that is just too unpleasant to bear: that you WERE immortal, but you yourself did the same thing that Adam did and went ahead and did what you know was forbidden, so now you're going to die. But on a straight read of Scripture, unpleasant or not, that's true. I'm not going to die because of Adam's sin. I'm going to die because of my own. Adam lived 930 years, sin and all, so maybe you or I will too. The REAL lasting effect of Adam's and Eve's sin is that they got kicked out of the natural habitat of man. So now, instead of living naked and eating fruit at ease like we're supposed to, we're living in really bad conditions that wear us down, with violence and death and disease all around us. Perhaps Adam was immortal IN EDEN, because there were no diseases IN EDEN, and perhaps aging and disease are things that are imposed by the bad environment, so perhaps the WAY that Adam's sin killed us all isn't because of some taint of the blood that gets washed off (makes no sense: baptism doesn't stop aging, disease and death, and it should if those things are the consequence of Mortal Sin, and Baptism washes away mortal sin). Perhaps the WAY that Adam's sin killed us is by getting us kicked out of our perfect habitat where we would live forever, into a hostile one that wears us out. We used to live in Paradise. But now we're wearing out in the disease infested jungle. THAT, and not mysterious taints in the blood, is probably why we wear out and die. But again, focusing on the flesh is kind of pointless. Flesh is grass. Be immortal, live "forever", and "forever" is the end of the world, in fire, so you get to burn to death at the end. Great. We can't hold onto it even if we're sinless Adam. And we're not. The good news is that we get it back. The bittersweet news is that we get it back, and then we get judged. The good news is that if we pass the test, we get to live on and on in the City of God. The bad news is that if we fail the test, we get thrown into the fire and killed again. The good news is that we already have the crib sheet and know how to pass. The bad news is that we have an insubordination problem. So, the bottom line is that we each need to get over our insubordination problem if we want to live until the end of times in God's City.
Jesus never sinned yet He did die. Jesus was MURDERED, which is not the same thing as just dying from natural mortality. Here's my accepted definition of mortality, one which I believe is widely accepted: mor·tal·i·ty noun: mortality; plural noun: mortalities 1. the state of being subject to death. What's yours?
He's looking for cover by posing as a Christian or, more likely, he's trying to annoy us so much that we bozo him (again) so he can sneak around like a backstabbing stalker on the forum and badmouth us behind our backs while high-fiving his fellow-Canaries in forum mails. Pretty much one or the other.
mor·tal·i·ty noun: mortality; plural noun: mortalities 1. the state of being subject to death. What's yours? I think that word immortality means what it does to biologists: "will not die of its own accord". I do not think, for example, that if Adam, before he sinned, were suddenly picked up and hurled into a lava pit, or thrown into the sun, or if he had a millstone tied around his neck and he were thrown into the deepest sea, that he would not drown. I think that he would have died. When biologists say that certain cells are immortal, what they mean is that they continuously regenerate, and they never wear out and die. They keep on going, keep on repairing themselves, and do not age. This is the problem with cancer cells, the thing that makes them so deadly: they're immortal. Your regular tissue cells are mortal: after a certain amount of time, they age, break down, degrade and die. But cancer cells don't do that. Cancer stills stay alive and vibrant. They keep on sucking energy and nutrients, and taking up space, and throwing out waste products, and reproducing, but they never wear out, age and die - they just keep on living. And so over time there are more and more and more of them, reproducing, but not dying. The regular tissue is dying. So the immortality of the cancer cells causes them over time to take the place and nutrients of the normal cell. But all a cancer cell does is eat and reproduce and keep on living, forever. It doesn't fulfill the FUNCTION that a cell in that organ should. It just LIVES and EATS and MULTIPLIES. Cancer cells are immortal. That doesn't mean that if you take a cancer cell and hit it with a laser, it won't cook and die. It just means that under normal conditions, it won't wear out and die. Adam and Eve had to eat. The first commandment they were given was to reproduce, but the second was to EAT. If immortality simply meant: will not die, no matter what, then they didn't have to eat. They could not eat, not drink, not breathe, go underwater to breathe, burn themselves up in fire and not be harmed, club each others brains out, leap off of cliffs, cut themselves open and play with their own entrails, swim in hot lava - do anything, and not die. That's what your definition of immortality would seem to permit. Not mine. Mine is the biological one: it won't age, wear out and die of its own accord. You can still kill it by removing its food, or air, or by physically destroying it. It just won't ever die of its own accord. We have different ideas about what immortality is. But it's pretty irrelevant, because the word immortality never appears in the Torah or in the Gospels. Man is never called immortal, and immortality is never taken away from man in the Scriptures either. That's a traditional gloss. I find the tradition to be unsupported by the text, and unneccessary because it explains nothing that requires explaining, so I don't accept it. It doesn't bother me that people do, but it seems pretty irrelevant to what God said. Our SPIRITS are immortal: they don't age or die. Body dies, spirit goes on. But even the spirit can and will be killed if God throws it into the Lake of Fire to utterly destroy it for good.
I saw your post clarifying your point.
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”(Isaiah 40:8)
One further point of clarification: what I mean is that I don't think that anything was taken from Adam and from us that Adam had before. Adam may very well have been immortal, and we likewise also may very well have been born immortal. God sentenced Adam to death for sin. That's why he died. He was immortal, unless he committed a sin, then God would execute him. What was true of Adam may very well be true of each of us. Like Adam, we too were born immortal. The Scripture does not speak of anything intrinsic to Adam that was taken away from mankind forever because Adam sinned. Scripture says that Adam died because he sinned. Scripture says that WE die because we sin (or, like Jesus, because we are murdered). The wages of sin is death. Scripture says that. So, Adam, and you and I, were all born immortal. Adam's sin did not take our immortality from us. Each man and woman is born capable of living forever and ever without ever wearing out of our own accord. We can be killed, but we will not die. Immortal. Every one of us. BUT the wages of sin is death. Commit a serious sin, a sin bringing death, and then we are sentenced to death, and our bodies wear out and we die, if we're not killed by something else first. The concept of "Original Sin" - that Adam was immortal, but sinned and so now WE'RE no longer immortal - but baptism washes away Original Sin: it's incoherent (because baptism does not make us immortal), and it's not in the Scripture, and it's a doctrine that serves no purpose other than to explain a question that Scripture doesn't ask. The better answer, on the text, is that each man is born immortal (in the biological sense), but that everybody wears out and dies because of the decision to commit mortal sin, and the wages of mortal sin is death. THAT fits Scripture and its inference. It also means that you were not born doomed to die any more than Adam was. You were born immortal. But you're going to die nevertheless, and the REASON you're going to die is the same reason Adam did: you committed mortal sin, and God has therefore sentenced you to death just exactly as he did Adam, for exactly the same reason. The only difference between you and Adam is that you know you will rise again and have a second chance. Of course, if you're just going to be judged AGAIN at the resurrection for the same sin, that seems a cruel trick. And this is why the mechanism for the forgiveness of sin is so very important: because THAT is the way to regain immortality when you get your life BACK. You live, you sin, you learn, you face your death penalty as the bitter penalty for what you did. You repent, you forgive others as Jesus said; if your forgiveness is perfect you die and await the resurrection in Paradise. If your forgiveness is imperfect, you pass into Gehenna and remain there "until the last penny [of debt to God for sin] is paid". Either way, you are resurrected, as are all, and then you face judgment. You died the first time because you sinned. Had you not sinned, you would have been immortal. But you did. Of course, just exactly like Adam and Eve, you had help. Eve didn't walk over and eat, she was TEMPTED to do it by Satan. Think back to your first mortal sin. You remember it. We all do. You knew it was wrong, that's why you hid it. You were lulled into it. Your eyes saw that the fruit was lucious, and you stretched forth your hand and took it knowing you shouldn't. This is an old refrain, God sees it run in every life, and on center stage with each of us when it happens is the serpent. God knows that we didn't commit the sin that killed us completely of our own accord. He knows we , like Eve, were pushed, tempted. The question is, then what? God is prepared to forgive us. But he doesn't change his mind about his opinion of the physics. He is just: you sinned, the wages of sin is death, I sentence you to death, and there will be no reprieve. And so we each lose our immortality, that we could have had, with our first mortal sin. Now we walk through the world as men on death row, which we are. We know we're doomed and that we will one day be taken and executed. The question is: what do we do with the time we have left? And Jesus has told us that if we use it properly, we can be forgiven our sins, go to Paradise, and pass the second judgment so that when we get our life back, we can walk sinless into the City of God and live there with God. But he also said that if we refuse to learn even from our punishment, and refuse to do what he said now that our eyes are opened and we know good from evil, and we know we've done evil and must die for it - if we don't avail ourselves of the chance at forgiveness, that we will die with the sins on our head, unforgiven, and will pay dearly in Gehenna for it all. And maybe be thrown into the lake of fire too, at the end. He would spare us that. We don't have much of a chance against Satan the first time around. We're young and dumb (and full of come), and we are purposely led astray by the Devil. And then we're sentenced to death for it. The Devil is sentenced to death for it too. We lose our immortality on this go-round, but because we are not wholly to blame - God knows that Satan, whom he also made, before he made man - pushed us to it. We didn't lead ourselves astray any more than Eve did: we were pushed. So God gives us a second chance, not at regaining immortality in THIS life, but with the hope of the next one. Indeed, death is a pretty trivial thing once one realizes that flesh is sloughed off and put back on again: the spirit is the thing. So, why doesn't God just destroy Satan and the demons? The question is asked again and again. Scripture doesn't answer directly, but we can discern why in Scripture from Satan's conversation with God in Job. God breathes out spirits - the angels first, then us. And the spirits are his companions. God refers to the angelic host as "us". He has prepared rooms in his city for us, to live with him. He loves us, we are told again and again, and he wants our company and the company of the angels. He's not done making us. He keeps making more and more of us. We have characters. He likes that. He makes us this way, and gives us sub-creative license, for the same reason he made stunning, useless things like the Grand Canyon and the massive nebulae: he likes it that way. God is a God of emotion, throughout the Scripture. Greek and Latin Stoics and Mathematicians have attempted to turn him into a passionless pagan God of logical principles, but he never revealed himself as anything other than an emotional and opinionated being all across Scripture. We're in his image - we look like him, and there is much of him in us. He likes our company, and we CAN understand this: we like the company of our children, even though they come from us and are younger and don't know as much and aren't as wise. He made up his mind to destroy Satan and the evil spirits eventually, but he tarries, for he has a relationship with them too, and they were made before us. Jesus, the Son of God, hates Satan with a passion that God the Father does not equally demonstrate when he speaks to him in the case of Job. The Father knows what he has to do, in the end, and he will do it. Jesus was destined to be a man and to suffer in the flesh the outrages that Satan does, and to see and feel it up close and personal. Jesus really HATES Satan. The Father tarries in destroying Satan, just as he tarried in killing Adam, and tarried in killing Cain, and tarried in killing bad King Ahab. And has tarried thus far in killing you. Bring on the end of the world, and with that comes the end of Satan. But it also means the end of the world, this beautiful, marred world that the Father made good and that he loves, and it means ceasing to create new sons and daughters in us, for the spirits don't marry and reproduce like we do. It means that the Father will not have any new spirits of men from this earth past that point. And he actually does love us and doesn't want to stop making us yet. So he tarries. He knows what Satan does, but he tarries in ending it just as he always tarries, because he still loves the world. And because the Father's relationship with Satan is not the same as the Son's. Satan will be no prodigal son who returns, but given time, God makes more men, and many of them return. If God ends time, that ends too. God doesn't change his mind about the physics. We see the Son and Satan interact in the Desert. It is not a kind interaction. It is cold and formal, two enemies confronting, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau. Jacob and Esau were reconciled. Cain and Abel could never be because Cain's act was so irrevocable. We see the Father and Satan interact in Job, and that is a much friendlier, jesting interaction, a Father with a rogue son, who DOES obey him and who IS limited by him. The Scriptures make it clear that God himself sends devils to test men, and destroying angels. Jesus the Son will drive all that from his reign when he comes again in Glory, and he will do it swiftly. But he hasn't come nack yet, because the Father is not swift to move, he tarries. He tarries in carrying out the death sentence on us, and he tarries in carrying out on Satan too. And from Scripture we do see why, if we think about it. The Son is eager to see the Kingdom blossom and Satan destroyed. The Father will do it, eventually, but he is not so eager to destroy his beautiful world, to stop fathering new spirits, or to permanent end any of his creations. One day the Father will bring himself to do it, and to end forever his interactions with Satan, to doom Satan, and the world, and bring those he wants with him into the Kingdom. But he hasn't been ready yet. Revelation tells us that he's going to let Satan have his run first, to let Satan win, or nearly so, for a little while. Then he'll let the end come. He has never shown himself eager to cut things off. He let Adam live on for a long time. He let Cain live on. He let Moses live on even after Moses committed murder, and used him as a great Prophet, but finally took him in the end. He's going to let Satan have his moment and then it will be done. In good time. The Son is more impatient, and really hates the terrible things that Satan does to men. Of course, the Son has been in the flesh and knows just exactly how bad the bad is. And so it is no paradox, really, that the Father has decided to make the Son the judge of man. Because the Son knows what we go through, all of it. The Son hates Satan and would destroy him right now. The Father doesn't hate Satan the same way the Son does - there isn't hatred in Job - the Father somes sends Satan on errands. The Son does not. The Father knows what he needs to do, and he'll do it, but he tarries... And that's a good thing for us, because it gives us time to repent and prepare for execution and then living again.
So here we are in 2015 arguing over the definition of a contemporary word in a contemporary language about something that happened thousands, if not millions, of years ago. How ironic, no?
Not really. We're discussing two things, really. The first is what exactly DID happen all those years ago. I don't see Scripture speaking of human mortality in terms of Adam. I see it saying that Adam sinned and therefore he died, and we sin and therefore we die. The second is the definition of a word - mortality - that doesn't appear in the original story. So, what I am seeing is that you (and you are not alone in this - I am not making an accusation here, you are simply stating the traditional belief) believe that Adam's death had something to do with ending his pre-existing immortality, and that what he did caused some sort of taint to pass into the whole world that causes the death of everybody (and everything) since. That's what you think it says. I think it says that Adam died because he sinned, and we die because we sin. I don't think that there is any LINK in the story between Adam's death and our death. I think that the only place where a link SEEMS to be made is in a writing of Paul, that says "By one man death came into the world", but that sentence is read to say more than it actually DOES say. So, I think that the hoary tradition is not actually IN Scripture, and therefore I ignore it in my own thinking. But because other men do think it, and think that their traditional story is in Scripture (it isn't), that it's Truth. Really what we're arguing about in this respect is tradition versus revelation. The tradition inserts the concept of mortality. Scripture can't help us here, because that whole concept and word isn't there. So, we're arguing about an extra-biblical word that is central to an extra- biblical tradition. To me, what this has to do with is human mythmaking, and nothing at all to do with revelation from God. That says what it says, and it doesn't talk about immortality or losing it, in those terms. So, our second discussion, about the meaning of the words "mortal" and "immortal" is, to you, a discussion of Scripture, because you think that concept is in Scripture. But to me it's just a discussion of the parameters of a modern word, because neither the word nor the concept in the tradition you believe is actually IN the Scripture. It's added. When you add things, you have to argue a lot, and no answer is possible, because the text is silent and there's nothing to consult. Not sure that there's anywhere to go with this. I suppose a brief synopsis of our two beliefs is in order, so that at least we're both sure that we're fairly discussing the other's view. To my eyes, Scripture says that God made Adam substantial, told him that if he ate the fruit of a particular tree he'd die. Adam ate the fruit, and God was true to his warning: Adam died. The wages of sin is death. I see each of us as having been born under the same deal, and each being sentenced to death. Of course, the bigger picture now that Jesus came, told us, and was resurrected proving it, is that death isn't as big a deal as it appears to be: life goes on in the spirit on the other side, and eventually we'll get bodies back. That's what Scripture says or what can be directly implied from it, to my eyes. To your eyes, as far as I can tell, is the traditional belief: man was immortal, then Adam sinned and man became mortal through inherited sin. This sin is inherited, and it is this "Original Sin" that baptism washes off in babies. Mary had to be immaculately conceived (conceived without Original Sin) so that she could bear Jesus, otherwise Jesus would contract this Original Sin from Mary, and Jesus had to be sinless. That's the logic and the tradition. It's not in Scripture, but it's how traditionalists have reasoned it out, in part to explain why infant baptism is "necessary". The same logic produced Limbo, as the indeterminate state of unbaptized babies. I see an error that then creates further logical conundra that have to be resolved by making up stories. Of course, Marian apparitions are said to resolve these issues. There are lots of real, medically documented healings at Lourdes, and Mary is officially reported to have told Bernadette Soubirous "I am the Immaculate Conception". If Mary really did say that to Bernadette, then the vast body of Lourdes healings would be God's post-Biblical, 19th and 20th (and 21at) Century direct revelation of the Immaculate Conception, with the truth proven by miracle. And that, in turn, would mean that an Immaculate Conception was needed, which would mean that the doctrine of Original Sin would be true, and the doctrine of Baptism washing it away would also likely be true. And that would all mean that my cosmology of sin and death are wrong. It would not mean that my logic is wrong, because my logic comes directly from what Scripture says and doesn't say. It would mean that Scripture is not the complete revelation of God, and that we have to rely on what God has revealed SINCE the First Century, also, as being of greater weight than what God said in Scripture, just as what Jesus revealed is of greater weight for us than what God said to Moses. The revelation nearest in time contains the most relevant information. So, from my perspective, the REAL question at the root of this is whether or not revelation stopped in the First Century and we have to rely on Scripture Alone, or does it continue to this day, which means that we have to take the miracles that God has done since, and place them as being of equal authority to the Bible, and of greater directive power, because they answer questions that the Bible doesn't, and tell us what to do. So, to me, ultimately, that is REALLY what the discussion is about: are there any revelations from God since the written book of Revelation? The answer to that question is "Of course there are". So, I study the Bible in sequence, and see layers of revelation in it, and I see the revelations have continued since then. And I notice that all of the concrete physical miracles that can be forensically examined are Christian, which means Christianity is the one true faith. And I notice that the nature of certain of the revelations demonstrate the truth of certain things: transubstantiation of the eucharist, the peculiar blessing of saints, the special status of Mary...and I notice that the only Christian denomination that incorporates the result of all of these revelations into its doctrine is the Catholic Church. And therefore I think that the Catholic Church is the one that has God in it fully. I recognize that if the evidence of the miracles is a lie, then the logic fails. Therefore, my faith in the Catholic Church reposes on the honesty of the scientific reporters who detailed the aspects of the miracles. However, because I have directly spoken with God, if the scientists are liars and the miracles are frauds, that would leave the Catholic Church a fraud, and reopen the question for me about the reliability of Scripture as perhaps the full revelation from God. But nothing can raise a doubt in my mind about the actual EXISTENCE of God, because I have directly experienced miracles, spoken with him, seen the Holy Dove, seen a demon, seen the City from below and afar, been plunged into the black Abyss, and felt the heat of the flames beneath the soles of my feet. So all of those things I know directly and empirically are true, and I know that anybody who doubts any of THOSE details is wrong. Curiously, I note that there is very, very little about the Black Abyss in Scripture. There are only hints.
So here we are in 2015 arguing over the definition of a contemporary word in a contemporary language about something that happened thousands, if not millions, of years ago. How ironic, no? Not really. Yes really. "The first is what exactly DID happen all those years ago. I don't see Scripture speaking of human mortality in terms of Adam. I see it saying that Adam sinned and therefore he died, and we sin and therefore we die." The generall accepted position of all the christian based sects is that thanks to Adam and Eve man is born with sin, namely Original Sin. Some sects believe that the newborn's soul is lost if it dies before it was bapitized.
You are totally wrong. The word die is in introduce the very beginning of Scripture. It was introduced in Scipture by God Himself. If that isn't a direct reference to mortality by God nothing is.
That is indeed the generally accepted belief of all of the major Christian denominations that I know of: Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, etc. The universally accepted belief of all Christian denominations before 1500 included prayers to saints. Today, many Christian denominations abhor the practice. Consensus gentium is consensus gentium. I don't accord it any weight at all.
That is NOT the belief of all Christians. John 3:19 states the basis of the Judgement is rejection of the light (Christ), because men love sin. Babies do not qualify as moral agents. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”h The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Jn 3:19–21.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
I don't dispute that. What isn't introduced is the word immortality, nor the assertion of it. "Do this and you'll die" is a warning. The rest of it - don't do this and you'll never die - and because you did it everybody after you will also die and they would have otherwise never died - that is quite a tarte-a- la-creme there. It doesn't follow. Indeed, the notion that there was a tree of life in the garden, the eating of which would instill something sounding like immortality, seems rather superfluous if Adam and Eve were already immortal. But really, what is all of this? It's building a whole vast edifice of doctrine on Inferences built on inferences. Apparently you see the traditional beliefs right there in Scripture. (I don't say "apparently" to be provocative. Rather, I say it because you've spoken about what "Christian sects" believe, but I haven't seen you say what you personally actually believe, or if you believe anything in particular. This is not a criticism. It's just that I can speak TO you and WITH you, and I am, but I can only speak OF sects and what you and I think sects believe. So, I think that I'm discussing these things with you because you believe certain things, some of which are traditional denominational beliefs, and I have different views of the issue, and we are in contention over the facts. That's what I think we're doing here.) I read it, and I certainly see the statements on which those traditional beliefs are constructed, but I don't find the actual statements there. I see less than you do there. I see a handful of facts and a great towering cream cake of inferences. I'll draw an inference myself from this conversation: this is where the trench line is going to settle on this particular subject: you see something, I see something different. We keep looking at it again and again, and we're still not seeing the same thing. I already shed a lot of Internet ink. I'm not sure that it does anybody any good for me to repeat myself over and over again. Perhaps it would help if we isolated the actual text about which we speak.
I am aware of that. So what? That only adds to the weight of my contention about the imperfections of the written Bible. Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. " Man had no sense of good and evil until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. One of the consequences of that was that God condemned them to death. The implication is that if they had obeyed Him they would have lived in their mortal state forever.
It is more than that.
Your unbelief in the face of Scripture amazes me.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org/Bible
I am sitting here with my Orthodox Study Bible open to 2 Esdras, Chapter 7. There are 27 verses in this chapter, and it's all about Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem. I'm sure that you have a specific document in mind, but it's not 2 Esdras 7:118, because there is no such line. Please check the cite again. When you say "Apocrypha", do you mean the Deuterocanonical works accepted by Catholics and Orthodox as canonical, that are called "Apocrypha" by Protestants, or do you mean the Pseudepigraphical words traditionally called "apocryphal" by the Catholics and Orthodox, but not treated as canonical by anybody? If the latter - if nobody calls the work you're citing sacred - then we're not talking about Scripture. If the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox call it part of the Canon, then certainly we should consider it. I simply can't consider the text you've suggested, because it doesn't exist. So please check your cite and come back to me. What you've cited from Paul is the place whence comes the idea of Original Sin as inherited, but what Paul wrote does not in fact say that. Read him again, carefully: what he is saying is that sin came into the world because of Adam. First, he's wrong. Sin first comes into the world because of the serpent. The serpent lies to Eve. Neither Adam nor Eve had yet eaten the forbidden fruit, but the serpent was right there in the world, and committing a mortal sin - lying is a mortal sin (see Jesus including it twice in the list of mortal sins on the last page of the Scriptures, and elsewhere condemning lying). So Paul's flat statement - sin came into the world because of Adam - is false. The first sin in the Bible is the serpent's lie. The first human sin was not committed by Adam. It was committed by Eve. Eve told the serpent that God had warned both her and her husband not to eat of the tree, or even touch it, or they'd die. She knew what she was doing. The serpent tricked her with a lie - a sin - and she sinned, and by her sin, she incurred the death promised to her. Adam's sin of eating the fruit was the THIRD sin that came into the world, and it was the same sin that Eve already committed. And he and Eve were sentenced to die for that. And we know explicitly that Adam died because Scripture tells us. We can assume Eve did also. Now, if we are more careful about reading the text and understanding the word "adam", which is ancient Hebrew name for the human SPECIES, as well as the specific name of the first male (sort of like calling your dog "Dog"), and if we read Paul's word "anthropos", which we translate as "man" as the equivalent of "adam", which is to say "human", then we can save part of what Paul said: "Sin came into the world because of one man"...and that man's name was Eve. Of course we can't save all of it, because sin did not come into the world because of Eve. Eve's sin came second. The serpent's lie came before that. Sin came into the world because of the serpent. Eve fell to temptation from the serpent, and Adam foolishly listened to his wife. Any way you dice it, what Paul writes here makes for a good sermon, but it is factually incorrect. Paul will go on to press the point of Jesus as a second Adam, who undoes the sin of the first. And the Church will go on to press the point of Mary as the second Eve, who says to God "Thy will be done" and allows herself to become impregnated by the Holy Spirit. While that's all great sermonizing and powerful metaphor, it is factually inaccurate, at least as far as what Paul said. Paul's errors begin with the first statement: sin came into the world because of one man. False. The first (recorded) sin in the world was the serpent's lie. They continue with Paul saying that it was because of one man. False. It was a woman not a man. Adam's sin was the third sin in Scripture, not the first. One can save the second point for Paul if we admit that Eve was the man by which sin came into the history of mankind, and we can save Paul's first point is we decide that "the world" just means "the world of men", and not the planet. If we insist that the world means the planet, and that "one man" means Adam and not Eve, then Paul made two factual errors in his proposition, and we only need read farther out of interest and out of respect for a good man whose rhetoric had carried him beyond the facts. To save Paul, I understand "world" to mean "world of mankind" - and not planet - (because what Paul says is false if it means "planet"), and I understand "man" to mean "human", not "male human" (because, again, what Paul says is false if he means Adam, as it was Eve who brought sin into the world of men). Now, let's look at Paul's conclusion: one man's tresspass led to condemnation for all. You've excised quite a bit of language of Paul's right in this section that rather makes the point I have made, but I'll stick with what you have presented because that's what interests you. There is no doubt that one man's tresspass - that would be Eve eating the fruit at the serpent's behest - led to condemnation for all. But you're reading into it that death passed through the blood as an inheritance. Rather, look at what the story says: the first adams were cast out of the garden into a world whose ground was cursed. No longer was life easy. Now it was very hard, and man was designed for a life of ease eating fruit from a tree. Now, things were very hard, very nasty, very spare. The first ancestors were easily tricked by the serpent. The serpent's still there, but now people aren't walking every afternoon side by side with God. Now they're dealing in a world of misery, scarcity, work that is harder than what we're designed for, violence, imposition...of course all of that presses man after man after man to sin, in lust and greed and desperation. The conditions are bad, and the bad conditions rot the fruit. This is because we're not in the Garden. In the Garden, it took the serpent directly to tempt Eve, and Adam's weakness at listening to his wife instead of recalling what God had said, that cost them both their home and their ease. Outside of the Garden, in the sweaty, nasty, dangerous world where we eat blood, there's no fruit easily hanging on the trees, we're always in danger, we don't need the serpent to tempt us directly to fall, the sheer badness of what we live in and with tempts us to cut corners and fall. And when we do that, we are condemned, for the wages of sin is death. So yes, one man: Eve, by her act, did indeed LEAD TO the condemnation of all, by getting us tossed out of the Garden, and by estranging us from the daily walks with God. Paul is right, read right. The tradition doesn't read him right. It reads things in that are not there. It turns a discussion of mankind into the physical planet and then raises questions about whether earthworms died before Adam ate the apple. (And yes, I purposely used the word "APPLE" there about the fruit, to make the point. Apple is the traditional gloss, but Scripture doesn't tell us that. It's trivial, but people get used to saying "the apple", and then the apple gets reified, and people who don't know better think it's the apple. Then we're talking about apples. The same thing has happened with what Paul wrote here.) It reads "man" as "male" and thinks "Adam", when it should read "human" and think "Eve", because she was the first human to sin. And then tradition goes into contortions and backflips to say no, it's ADAM that we're talking about...because Adam was male, and people traditionally liked the idea of male leadership (even into bad things), and to be able to draw the metaphoric pairing with Jesus. (And all this even though we're made in God's image, male and female.) There is a lot of heavy seas of tradition here, but it's all added on tinsel to what Paul said. Paul can be read to be saying what happened: sin came to humans because of one human - Eve, and Eve's tresspass did indeed lead to condemnation for all: first for Adam, because she led him into sin, then for the rest of mankind by getting expelled from the Garden and away from the daily walks with YHWH in the afternoon. Estranged, in a tough planet with a lying serpent slithering around in it tricking people into doing bad things, men sins and sins and sins and sins. And that is how the sin of one person - Eve - LED TO the condemnation of all: by creating the conditions in which it's inevitable. Pretty clear, and doesn't do violence to the text OR to reality. But insisting that physical death of anything on the PLANET came from the sin of the male, Adam, because ADAM brought sin into the world...well, that's a traditional read of Paul - and Paul may have even been thinking that - but that is factual false and directly contradicts Scripture, so it's not sustainable. The tradition is false. What Paul said is true, if you read it right. Read him wrong, and he's very easy to misunderstand and be led astray. The worst place this happens is by listing to Paul in Romans and understanding him to say that the only thing that matters is what you believe about God in your head, when Jesus said over and over again, including on the last page of the Bible from Heaven, that men are judged on their DEEDS. Tradition will get you to the main things you need to know. But it frequently goes down blind allies on factual details. Scripture does conflict with itself sometimes. Other times it only appears to. In the case of Paul and Original Sin, it only appears to. The Tradition reads three words wrong, and creates a doctrine that is not there, that is contrary to fact, and that in turn leads to a bunch more crazy doctrines and speculations that have no basis in the text at all, or anywhere else - they're just logically "necessary" for the precedent to be true. The first recorded sin was the serpent's lie. The first sinner was Eve. Eve LED Adam to sin, and their sin LED to the expulsion from the Garden and loss of personal walks with God in the spiritual part of the day, and the conditions outside of the Garden plus the serpent/Satan doing his work among mend stumbling around without walking with God led men to each individually sin, and therefore die. That's why we age and die. We inherited a broken world because of sin, and what led to all of that was Eve listening to the serpent and breaking God's dietary law. God doesn't change his mind often, and he didn't then. We do indeed pay for it, and we sin because of it, it LED to our sins - but Eve didn't CAUSE us to sin, she got our family evicted from Paradise and got her family - us - dumped out into a ghetto where the temptations are awful and everybody falls. That does not mean that God put a taint in our blood from that point on, an Original Sin, that makes us die, but that is magically washed away by baptism, which is why babies need to be baptized, because otherwise if they die they still have "Original Sin" and God may reject them from Heaven. That's all made up out of wholecloth. Scripture says none of that - not a word of it. There's that quote of Paul's, which properly read is not offensive, but which read "traditionally" has two falsehoods in the first clause of the first sentence (demonstrating that the traditional read is false). And there's the fact that baptized babies, washed from of their Original Sin, often die anyway. We have to be Baptized, to have our Christian mikvah, because Jesus said it was necessary. He did not explain why. We have tried to explain why. We've made up a story. It fails on the details. All we know is that we do need to be baptized. We are not told we need to choose it, and we are not told what it does. We are told JUST DO IT, pretty much like the Hebrews were told to follow the various cleanliness practices without any explanation as to why. Just do it. WE know, now, that those practices protect from disease, and God DID say that if the Hebrews did everything he said (not just in those practices) he wouldn't inflict disease on them like he did in Egypt. So WE know, with germ theory, part of what God was doing and the mechanism he was using. We ALSO know that baptism is part of what we have to do to be pleasing to God. We know that because he told us. He did not tell us what it does, or why. Nor did he tell us that he does not retain the discretion to give favorable judgment to faraway people who never heard of baptism. Perhaps he baptizes them himself, with the rain. One thing is for sure, he did NOT say that it had anything to do with "making a choice" or "washing away an original sin". Those are the traditions of Christians, and they are pure fantasies made up from nothing...other than maybe later divine revelations that are not in the Scriptures. So, we've spoken of Paul. If you stick with Tradition, then you've actually found three gross factual errors in the Bible: glaring ones. If you read "world" as "planet" as opposed to "mankind", then you have Adam committing the first sin in the world, bringing sin into the world. But his was the third. People who look for Bible contradictions can have a field day with this sentence of Paul's, but only if the traditional interpretation is stipulated. However, the traditional interpretation is foolish and based on nothing, and ought to be discarded in favor of the truth, which is what Genesis tells us happened, and then read Paul in that light. It CAN be done, without twisting Paul's text, and without contradiction. So, that's what Paul means, and the conflict disappears. Give me the right 2 Esdras cite and we can explore that. Until then, I will repeat: we die because we sin, or because we're killed by somebody ELSE'S sin. Abel had just pleased God, and Jesus didn't sin - they were MURDERED, by other people who thereby drowned in their own sin and cast their spirits into Gehenna, and probably after the resurrection and judgment, into the Lake of Fire. In Gehenna it may be possible to pay the price for a lie, but the price for murdering the Son of God is probably inexpiable.
I relied on the link for that information. Frankly I never heard of Esdras prior to reseaching that link. Is not the citation of Paul correct?
Not as much as your belief that the present day translations of Scripture are perfect, each and every version of them, amazes me. So you do believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old after all. Suffice it to say I have belief in Scripture but not as a perfect document in which every qword is to be taken literally as exact respresentation of historical physical fact. Yet I still have an abiding belief in God. Go figure. We should leave this aspect of our dialogue where it is. Though you haven't answered my questions in the past I will ask again. When does someone first come to faith? For those born into a Christian family whether quite religious church goers or not, generally when does one first hear about God and Jesus? From who? How? At what point does the Holy Ghost come to that person? At that point exactly what does that person know of Scripture? Hint: When do they celebrate their first Christmas?
It gives the basics, yes. I wrote a lot about what Paul said, above.
Title: My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church? Source: creation.com URL Source: http://creation.com/my-pastor-doesnt-believe-in-genesis Published: Nov 15, 2014 Author: creation.com Post Date: 2014-11-15 19:23:45 by CZ82 Keywords: None Views: 60571 Comments: 207 My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church? Published: 15 November 2014 (GMT+10) We received the following question from a supporter in Australia who was surprised to discover the pastors of his church did not believe Genesis. Tas Walker talks about some of the issues that need to be considered. "Hi guys, I love your work, and have subscribed to the magazine and am continually encouraged by what you guys publish". "I have a question. I’m at a church which I’ve attended for the last 12 years (I’m now 30). I’ve since realized that none of the 3 pastors take a straightforward reading of Genesis, and at least 2 of the 3 (haven’t yet checked the 3rd) don’t even believe the Flood was global. I was wondering if you had some advice on what I should do about this. I have 2 kids and 1 on the way and I want them growing up in a biblically sound church. Apart from Genesis our church is excellent. Do you think leaving the church is too drastic? Love to get your feedback, thanks heaps"! Tas Walker replies: Thank you for your question about being part of a church where the pastors do not accept Genesis as written. Unfortunately that is more common these days than it should be. The decision as to which church you and your family should belong to depends on many different factors. Here are some issues for you to think and pray about. There is no such thing as a perfect church. In some areas the church may be really good for you but in others it may be totally unhelpful. So you have to balance a lot of factors in your life. There are usually good reasons in your life why you belong to the church you do, but churches change with time. E.g. sometimes the youth ministry is strong and other times it struggles. Your pastoral team will change and that will bring a different dynamic. So, perhaps by waiting you may see things improve. Church is not just about what you can get out of it, but it is a place where you can minister to others with your gifts. Your passion and experience with creation may be one area where you can be a blessing to others. In every church you will have to stand for and speak out the truth, and this can apply to many different issues. In this particular church the issue that you need to bring to others is the truth and foundation of Genesis. But speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. Look at this as an opportunity to share some wonderful truth that otherwise would not be shared. Rather than pushing creation in six days on people as if it is your hobby horse, use it to meet their needs as you become aware of them. Thus, you can present the truth to people along the following lines: “You may find this will help resolve some of your doubts and give you a firm foundation as you follow Christ.” I always take back issues of Creation magazine to church, as well as brochures and DVDs, which I freely give to people as the need arises. Speak the truth in love, with tact and in a winsome way. You may be influential in the thinking and life of your pastors. It’s important to love them and support them. Don’t be divisive or argumentative. Don’t be a one-issue person but show that you are interested in the wider ministry of the church and that your passion is to serve Jesus Christ and to help others come to Him and grow in Him. Here are two examples of how a person in the pews was pivotal in helping their minister come to the truth of Genesis: A young man in a church lent a book to his minister who was big enough to read the book and research the issue and who changed his mind (see Esa Hukkinen interview). This pastor, Owen Butt, believed Genesis was myth but changed his mind after attending a creation meeting, and that changed his whole approach to ministry. What this article does not say is that it was one of his congregation who fed him information and invited him to the creation meeting, where his whole way of thinking was changed (See Catching the vision). Make sure that your family is properly instructed in the truth of Genesis and creation by providing books, DVDs and other resources for them. Talk about the question and issues as they arise. However, note that it is really important to always speak in a positive way about your pastors and your church, especially with your children. If there is a critical spirit and an undermining of your pastors and your church in your home, that will poison things for your children. If the situation becomes very difficult for you, with say the pastors instructing you not to talk about the issue you may need to think about moving. In the same way, you could not accept a ministry offer from the pastors if they included a condition that you could not talk about creation in that ministry or in the church. So if there is a hardening and aggressiveness develops toward your position, say from the pulpit, you may need to think about moving. In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5 God bless, Tas Walker Post Comment Private Reply Bookmark Ignore Thread Edit Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: CZ82 (#0) If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what? A K A Stone posted on 2014-11-15 22:03:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit #2. To: A K A Stone, BobCeleste, liberator (#1) The article's title is simple to answer. Ask the pastor if he supports homosexual 'marriage.' Ask the pastor if he supports human life beginning at conception. Ask the pastor if he supports church members divorcing and remarriage and remaining in the assembly. Ask the pastor if he believes God through Moses literally parted the Red Sea; if God through Joshua made the walls of Jericho collapse. (If they answer all of the above affirmatively, then ask why not believe Genesis is literally true) If they have problems answering the above questions find another assembly. If the pastor happens to be a woman, then you don't even have to ask the questions, leave immediately. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12) redleghunter posted on 2014-11-15 23:41:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit #3. To: redleghunter (#2) I concur with all of your litmus test (but conditionally on one): Ask the pastor if he supports church members divorcing and remarriage and remaining in the assembly. Sometimes "Condition: RED" can't be helped. Condoning divorce is one thing; however what's done is done in some cases. I don't know if shunning in that case makes sense to me for a hungry, repentant believer. Liberator posted on 2014-11-16 10:23:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit #4. To: CZ82 (#0) In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives. “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” James 1:5 Like it. Liberator posted on 2014-11-16 10:24:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit #5. To: A K A Stone (#1) If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what? There is an answer to your question, and I am willing to answer it for you. There is a completely different way to read the Bible. The traditional way, which came out of traditional Catholic and Orthodox thinking, itself came out of traditional Jewish thinking. After all, all 12 Apostles and Paul were Middle Eastern Jews, from the land of Israel and its environs, by birth and culture. Jesus was too, of course, but he is different because of who his Father was and the special knowledge and power he had. The traditional way of seeing it saw the Christian Church as the continuation of the Jewish revelation. While this is certainly true, the key features of it where that the Apostles and the traditionalists did not simply valorize the revelations of God, but also the particular historical and cultural achievements of Israel. They understood God's plan of salvation in a certain way. To follow the traditional thread of thinking, God made man, man fell, and this fall, this original sin, left an imprint of sin on the character of each man. Because of this sin, man could not attain heaven after death. In order to save man, eventually, God chose one people, the Hebrews, and gave them The Law. The Jews waxed and waned, and did not follow the law perfectly. So God sent Jesus to bring the whole world into salvation. Under the Jewish law, the blood of animals released sin, but could not completely release a man of all of his sins. But with Jesus, baptism wipes away original sin, and the blood of Christ's sacrifice is the final, perfect lamb of the Jewish sacrificial cycle, which takes away the sins of the whole world (and not just the Jews). So, through adoption, the world are all Messianic Jews. The reason for Jesus, under the traditional view, is to redeem us from our sins as laid out under the Jewish law. The assumption is that a perfect adherence to the Jewish Law would have led to salvation, but nobody could do it, and so Jesus was sent to do it for everybody. That's the traditional view, and that view depends on the existence of Adam and Eve as literally described in order to establish the Original Sin that needs to be wiped away. That's the traditional read and understanding. It's what Paul understood he was doing. There is a very different way to read the same text. I was looking for something else but came across this. According to what you wrote here and what you said today about the Bible being a lie or however you phrased it. So according to this you are not even a Catholic.
That was for you also.
You don’t understand what the word “if” means, do you? You are not able to process a hypothetical argument and understand its purpose, are you? As far as me not being a Catholic, you’re in no position to judge such a thing. You don’t understand Catholicism, and you’re unable to step out of your rigid literalism to understand anything from a different perspective. All you do is be a blundering battering ram, beating at the same point over and over, and you don’t see or comprehend when it has been addressed. You and VxH just keep right in hammering away at some point that’s already been asked and answered a dozen times, like a woodpecker smashing it’s beak again and again on an iron door
You don't answer things 100 times. You Dodge and run. Why is it not hypocritical to say God doesn't heal nada doesn't happen. Then you say he heals you. Oh now I'm being mean again asking a question you will not answer. Yes I am in a position to say you are not a Catholic. Because you said you don't have what you refer to as the traditional view. You said that is the Catholic view.
It is not hypocritical at all. What I am saying is this: God saved me by a miracle. He does that for people. Jesus did it with Lazarus. But he's not going to save us from eventual death. Sooner or later our time comes. Lazarus was raised by Jesus, but he's not still walking the earth. Eventually God kills us all. He decides the where, when and how. He also decides when he will extend the grace of a miracle. It's all in his hands. That's not hard to understand.
You're not. You're just petty and bitchy. I never run, I get tired of saying the same things and being misunderstood - my English is pretty plain. And I get tired of your and VxH's efforts at bad lawyering. You don't know what Catholicism is or what we believe. You throw a lot of shit out there which is what your little brand of Protestantism believes that Catholics believe, but what you are saying is ignorant nonsense, and you're unteachable. You're CONVICTED in your ignorant nonsense, and always nasty about it, in post after post. Catholicism is not like some little pastpr-centered Church, where everybody has to believe the same narrow set of doctrines. Catholicism spans the world, and has lots of different local practices, focuses, saints feast days, different things emphasized. The real core beliefs are contained in the Creed, but you won't listen to that. You burrow into some doily design on the Pope's hat on some day and really think that this is of significance to Catholics. The Pope is nothing like your local pastor. You hang on your guy's every word, and if he puts you out of his church, you're out. You pay his salary. To Catholics, the Pope is a very distant administrative leader who tries to set a tone. Some Catholics probably do focus in on the Pope and what he has to say. To most Catholics, the Pope is as distant as the Secretary General of the UN. It is not for YOU to say who is a Catholic and who is not, or who is a good Catholic and who is a bad. It's not really for ANYBODY to say that. The Catholic Church is a much broader thing than the narrow, everybody-watching- everybody-else doctrinally focused Protestant church you are used to. A key difference: I am completely uninterested in your church and its doctrines. I don't care what you believe, how you practice your faith, what you do. It doesn't offend me that you do it differently, believe differently, think different things about the Bible or Jesus or God. It is truly irrelevant to me and my life. There is literally nothing more useless in this world than another man's religious beliefs and doctrines. The reverse is not true. You people are obsessed with what we Catholics are doing. It's all you talk about when you attack me. You have weird, warped ideas about it all, and you present a very mangled view of Catholicism when you speak about it, but speak about it you do, constantly. If it's not Mary, it's about some doily on one of the Pope's hats. You care a whole lot more about what the Pope happens to be wearing on some day than any Catholic in the world besides his personal valet. It's evidence of a deeply superstitious mindset on your part. "Look! The Pope is wearing a symbol that looks vaguely like some symbol from ancient Somewhere-istan - clearly this is demonic and paganism creeping in. It's just such utter nonsense, like a Jack Chick cartoon. But there you people are, out there obsessing about strange little irrelevant details. You're straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel. And you're just so very nasty about it, all the time. Your religion is hateful and repugnant, and you act like illiterates. Your brains don't seem to be able to follow obvious logic such as "God saves somebody's like a miracle today...but someday God's going to take that person's life." You actually have to have everything spelled out for you, letter by letter, and you pretend that the Bible does that, but it doesn't. This causes you to go berserk and attack other people who have not lapsed into the strange errors you have. You and VxH are really peas in a pod in this regard. Talking to either of you is like talking to a mule. I don't run. I just realize that it's futile. It's like arguing with drunks. You could stop it. You could just ask questions and hear the answers, and if there's something you don't understand, ask for clarification. You never do that, though. You ask, I answer, and you viciously attack as you act your next question. Essentially, to converse with you or VxH about religion is to have to accept getting spat upon every single time you respond. In other words, you talk like 13 year old boys. I don't ask you about your religion, because I really don't care what you believe, what you practice, what you do. I only attack yours BECAUSE you attack mine and me so continuously. Why do you do this? It's a giant waste of time. If you're attempting to evangelize, you're considerably less effective than the Jehovah's Witnesses. They at least try to be nice when they knock on the door. You and VxH make no pretense of being nice. It's a waste of time to try to convert me anyway. The seal of baptism was put on me as a baby, and it was under that seal that God saved my life, and speaks to me. I'm always going to dance with the one who brung me. I don't mind talking about religion, and I'm not a scold. But when folks like you and VxH presume to scold me all the time, and say mean things to me personally and then say things that are just ignorant, my patience wears out. You're blind to how very obnoxious you are. Why don't you and VxH form a new denomination. You can call yourself the "JERKS FOR JESUS".
Awesome. You idiots can all believe something different, contradict each other and you're all right. You don't follow Christ you follow the traditions of the church that helped the Nazis. Was you pios pope perfect and infallible when they took the Jews from Vatican hill and murdered them. Believe what you want you are full of contradictions. You didnt raise anything from the dead thru gods power. You were tripping on acid or you're just a liar. Does your daughter believe you raised lizards and bugs from the dead? You're self deluded. Also you lied in an earlier post when you didn't answer about your blatant hypocritical lie.
Why don't you follow Christ instead of the antichrist faggot loving pope sinner.
You don't believe the Bible so you will never know the truth. Lizards and bugs lol. Frickin idiot.
Why do you do this? It's a giant waste of time. Because I want you to get it right and not believe some man made Catholic bullshit. Also you don't believe only the words in red in the Bible. Because it never says anything about a pope or praying to a non virgin dead oerson
Lizards and bugs lol. Frickin idiot. And here you deny a fact that I experienced directly - and you expect me to follow you? It was a baby mouse and an anole lizard.
It does: Peter was the first Pope. And it does: we are asked to pray for each other, and the dead are not really dead at all.
I do. Why don't you follow Christ and stop bearing false witness?
And you think that telling a man that his experiences dealing directly with God make him a "frikkin' idiot", and that the religion he was born into, which God apparently didn't mind when he talked to me, is bullshit, is the way to do that? Truth is, your religion is false, because it cannot accept things that happened to be directly. Truth is, as a spokesman for your religion, you fail at persuading me of anything, because you're calling me an idiot and demanding that I deny the evidence of my own eyes. What you do is utterly ineffective. You sound to me exactly like a Muslim, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Southern Baptist. You firmly believe something, and that means that you know everything, so you tell me white is black and black is white, and I am supposed to see you as a teacher? Trouble is, God DID raise two dead animals in my hands, and has talked to me, and did heal my broken neck in that lake. No mere words of some other man are ever going to be persuasive, and when that man mocks what God has wrought TO ME and WITH ME, what that man shows me is that he doesn't know the truth, and that his religion is false. I know my God, up front and personal, and I can show a great deal of him to anybody. You ridicule things I have seen and done directly, and ridicule me for being so completely unconcerned about the ravings and insults of ignorant men like you, that I freely and openly talk about God raising a dead mouse in my hands. YOUR God would never do such a thing. But mine DID. Which means that YOUR God does not really exist - he's a figment of your imagination. By my God is real. Which is why I'm so completely uninterested in your worthless religion. It's false. You don't even know what I know, and you insult it, and YOU expect to teach ME? You keep coming at it, as though you have something to teach. You know nothing. You've seen nothing. And you've spoken, as THOUGH you had authority, to deny things that I have directly experienced. Know who sounds like an idiot to me? You. Know what makes you more of an idiot? You persist In these futile and ignorant attacks. See, I keep saying "This is dumb, let's stop", but you keep ringing the doorbell like a Jehovah's Witness, and spouting the same absurd nonsense because YOU believe it, and think I should too. But what you believe is obviously false, because it cannot contain those things that I KNOW DIRECTLY AND HAVE DIRECTLY EXPERIENCED. If your religion cannot handle my truths, it's bullshit. I don't generally insult people's religions UNLESS those religions get aggressive. The problem with Islam is that it's aggressive. The problem with your religion is that it is aggressive, mean spirited, and cannot handle the truth. Why, then, would I ever think to look into it? Do you read the book of Mormon because the Mormons ring your doorbell? Of course not! Do you go read the Koran because the Muslims scream threats and "Dirka! Dirka! Jihad!" No. It would be absurd. But you tell me that I'm a freakin' idiot and that I should follow your book and your God? Why would I do that? By what you've already said, I ALREADY KNOW that your religion is false. YOU don't, but I do, because YOUR God can't raise a mouse and a lizard, but mine already did before my own eyes. So, I'm supposed to deny God because of your little Christian Koran and your little Talibani style? I would be a fucking idiot to do so. And I'm not. You can't teach me anything about God. Which is why these conversations, which are always abusive, are precisely the waste of time that I correctly called them at the beginning of this latest bile-fest. Notice what I don't do? I don't say: "God healed my neck and raised some animals, so follow me!" I say, rather, you should keep on searching for God in the way that you can accept, and if you want help in seeing him concretely, look at the Shroud of Turin, the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracles, the Incorrupt Bodies of the Saints, and the Lourdes Healings. There, you will see the direct power of God manifested before the eyes of the world in a concrete way that YOU can see yourself, if you want to look. That's the extent of what I say: go look there. God will show himself to you there. Then, when you pick up your Bible, you know that it's worthwhile to do so because you already know that God really IS, and that Christ is Lord. And THEN you'll understand why the red letters matter, but Ezekiel and Genesis really don't. If you want to know what God WANTS you ro DO, Jesus is the source of that. And that's all that matters. You think that what you believe in your head is what matters. You think that because somebody told you that. God never did. God told you that what matters is what you DO - he said that it's no good to say you follow him if you don't do what he said to do. And the way God said that was through Jesus. For some reason, people like you do everything possible to IGNORE the red letter words that Jesus spoke, in order to elevate what Paul said, or Moses, or Ezekiel, or even YHWH himself - but the Father said to listen to Jesus, so start there. You've never done that. You blow right past Jesus to what you WANT to read. And then you misinterpret it - taking, for example, "He who will not work, shall not eat" - a mere opinion of a mere man expressed with regards to abuses at ancient soup kitchens - as a commandment on a par with, and of even greater authority than, what Jesus himself, the Son of God, said with regards to the poor. It's preposterous. You're not teachable by me, and I already know that - so I say it's a waste of time to try - AND DON'T TRY ANYMORE. You can't teach me anything for the reasons I've already stated. So, why do you persist? Because you like insulting me and like playing gotcha - but you never really do "get me" because you're really bad at it, and have reading comprehension problems - and there's no court to give you the win. This is all a waste of time. All it serves as is a vent for you to be insulting to me. And for me to respond in kind. Not what Jesus said to do, is it? So why don't we stop? I don't care whether or not you are a Catholic, and I'm certainly not joining you in the Jerks for Jesus.
I've never done drugs in my life. I am not a liar. You are an ignorant fool.
Revived
#2. To: A K A Stone, BobCeleste, liberator (#1)
#3. To: redleghunter (#2)
#4. To: CZ82 (#0)
In our life’s entire journey it is important to seek the Lord and His will for our lives.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#1)
If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what?
#6. To: CZ82 (#0)
My pastors don’t believe Genesis. Should I leave my church?
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#9. To: CZ82 (#0)
#10. To: CZ82 (#0)
There is no such thing as a perfect church.
#11. To: BobCeleste (#6)
#12. To: A K A Stone, CZ82, vicomte13, redleghunter (#1)
If you don't believe Genesis. Then what exactly would be the reason for Jesus? To redeem us from what?
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?
#14. To: Don (#9)
The Holy Bible isn't open to one's personal interpretation.
#15. To: BobCeleste (#6)
#16. To: SOSO (#14)
#17. To: Don (#16)
Some translations are easy to know as bad. Exact translations from original sources are good. I like King James, American Standard, and the revisions of them. I am sure there are others. Are there any that you like?
#18. To: SOSO, A K A Stone, CZ82, vicomte13, redleghunter (#12)
The more relevant question IMO is what is the reason for Genesis?
#19. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, CZ82, vicomte13, redleghunter (#18)
The reason for Genesis is exactly that; A brief explanation of The Beginning.
#20. To: SOSO (#19)
(Edited)
Mortal Man can never undrestand the Mind of God, much less the nature of the Infinite.
#21. To: CZ82, BobCeleste (#15)
#22. To: SOSO, Liberator, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, CZ82, TooConservative (#19)
The how is explained but not the why.
#23. To: A K A Stone, Don, SOSO (#7)
So you tell me, do you really want to know the answer to your question? And are you willing to hear the answer without ripping my head off?
#24. To: redleghunter (#11)
#25. To: CZ82 (#15)
Good to see you Bob, how are things going with your treatments?
#26. To: Liberator (#21)
Bob, yes, how are you doing? Still battling with all ya got, brutha?
#27. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Don, SOSO (#23)
Your question, and Don's, and SOSO's comment to me... I'm going to take the time to write a careful, comprehensive and clear answer.
#28. To: SOSO (#27)
The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man
#29. To: redleghunter (#28)
God is Love my friend.
#30. To: SOSO (#29)
#31. To: redleghunter (#30)
God created us in His image and likeness.
#32. To: SOSO (#31)
#33. To: SOSO (#27)
(Edited)
May I suggest two therads be started: Why Genesis? and Just Genesis. The former addressing the question of why did God create the Heavens and Earth and Man, the latter the biblical account of Genesis as historical fact and/or meaning. Obvioulsy both why and how of creation have an impact on how one views and accepts the teachings of the Bible. Frankly I expect that the former thread would have a very short existenace as the bottom line is no-one knows why God rolled up His sleves in a creation mode.
#34. To: BobCeleste (#25)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
I know why God filled up the sky and the land: because he wanted to.
#36. To: redleghunter (#32)
You approach this with a hardened heart.
#37. To: SOSO (#36)
#38. To: SOSO (#35)
Well, OK then. God does as He jolly well pleases and we, His creations, can just run around arguing about not only what He did, or if He did, but why He did. It all makes perfect sense now. God does not need to communicate to us a purpose for our existence, and we shouldn't expect to have one, much less ask Him. Thanks for clearing that up.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
We can just make shit up and ascribe it to God, if we want to, but when we do that, it's not true.
#40. To: SOSO (#36)
Even Thomas needed tangible proof. Am I less than Thomas in that regard?
#41. To: SOSO (#39)
On this I totally agree. But its human nature to inquire, to want to know why. And isn't God that bestowed that nature upon us? At times it seems that He has a cruel sense of humor.
#42. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#41)
#43. To: SOSO (#39)
#44. To: redleghunter (#42)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
And this, ultimately is the question - not just for you but for every man who enters into such a discussion: are you really looking for answers - do you really want to know if there is tangible proof of God, and if it is said that there is, are you ready to look at the proffer scientifically with an unbiased mind?
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Nobody has bozoed me yet. I hope none do.
#47. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#42)
Hey just checked. I have 2 Bozos and rarely posted here in the past. Can you beat that:)
#48. To: SOSO (#47)
#49. To: redleghunter (#48)
Well I've been cataloging terrorist Jihadi cells for well over 10 years now.
#50. To: SOSO (#45)
I may be fooling myself but I believe that this is what I have been doing since I started religous instruction when I was about six years old or so. But when I was a child a spoke as one.....yadadayadadayada....you know the rest of the line.
#51. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#50)
And what must you do to be forgiven? Well, some Christians say "Believe in Christ", but Christ said "What good does it do you to say you believe in me if you don't do as I say?" In other words, believing that Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient to be forgiven your sins. Who says? Christ says. Some men say otherwise. They're wrong. Once they've been show what Christ said, as here, if they persist anyway, they're peddling lies.
#52. To: CZ82 (#34)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
#53. To: BobCeleste (#26)
#54. To: SOSO (#51)
BTW, you left out a very important first step, namely faith and how one comes to it.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#54)
We are all given a measure of faith. We can squander it or let it grow.
#56. To: SOSO, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, Don, GarySpFc (#29)
But that [God = Love] doesn't explain why He created Man.
#57. To: Liberator, redleghunter, Bob Celeste, Don, GarySpFc (#56)
Again, as a mere mortal, how can THE Plan of the Infinite Almighty God be analyzed for motivation? By mortal standards of reason and rationale no less.
#58. To: SOSO (#57)
Bingo. All of my questions are about mortal attributes. If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He?
#59. To: Liberator (#58)
Yes. You've walked into THE Paradox
#60. To: SOSO, Liberator (#57)
If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state.
Paul Craig Roberts
They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#61. To: Deckard, Liberator (#60)
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
#62. To: Deckard, SOSO, redleghunter (#60)
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
#63. To: SOSO (#59)
More like embraced it [The Paradox] with eyes wide open.
#64. To: SOSO (#51)
Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple. Perhaps God knows that it is and looks crossed eyed on those that don't see it that way. Man, through organized religions, has sure distorted things. I like your posit. It is clean. It is simple. It explodes the need for a Church and scores of versions of the Bible that each claim supremacy.
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
What does that mean?
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
Trust is an entirely different thing, though.
#67. To: SOSO (#66)
Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?
#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)
What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story.
#69. To: SOSO (#68)
Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
You will have to be more specific for me to understand you better.
#71. To: SOSO (#70)
And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right?
#72. To: SOSO, Liberator, Bob Celeste, Don, GarySpFc, TooConservative (#57)
Bingo. All of my questions are about mortal attributes. If God in fact does need anything then He wouldn't be God, would He?
#73. To: Deckard, SOSO, TooConservative, Liberator, GarySpFc (#60)
God does not need love from his creation, but I'm sure that it's something He deeply desires.
#74. To: A K A Stone, Liberator, SOSO (#67)
God in the Bible said he would translate his word to all tongues.
#75. To: SOSO (#51)
Wouldest your description of redemption be that simple.
#76. To: A K A Stone, GarySpFc, TooConservative, SOSO, Liberator, Vicomte13 (#67)
What was the first English version and can you find any contradictions in it? It was the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible I believe. I haven't compared them word for word. But those two and the King James seem to tell the same story.
#77. To: SOSO (#68)
Then why are the some many disagreements on what God said to man? Take transubstantiation, the staus of Mary, the status of saints, to name just a few.
#78. To: SOSO (#70)
differences in versions that simply lead to disagremment on the nature of the eucarist, for example.
#79. To: SOSO (#66)
Which translation of which version of which interpretation of which translation is the one true Scripture?
#80. To: SOSO, TooConservative, Liberator, A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#70)
And therein lies the nature of my question, who got it right? This certainly fuels the fire, the temptation, to say that they are all full of it. And certainly to suspicion of the guy that tries to sell you that his version is the one and only true Word of God.
#81. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, Liberator, A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#80)
Who got it right?
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
Truth be told, there are only about 20 words in Scripture upon whose definitions everything turns. If one translates those words wrong, if one mangles the concept being conveyed, then one will come to a decidedly different place from what was actually expressed.
#83. To: SOSO (#65)
I don't understand what you are asking. Do I believe in God? Yes.
#84. To: redleghunter (#73)
We were created to Glorify God.
#85. To: Liberator (#83)
He teaches love, kindness, honesty, honor
#86. To: yukon (#85)
#87. To: TooConservative (#86)
You would know.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#71)
People have told me they have seen contradictions in the King James version. Sometimes people say there are. But I haven't seen anything myself.
#89. To: redleghunter (#78)
Just go to FR. There is a eucharist battle over there every day. A very unproductive one at it. You will get your fill there.
#90. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#88)
#91. To: Liberator (#83)
Do we know what God expects of us? YES.
#92. To: SOSO (#82)
Awfully sloppy of God, wouldn't you say?
#93. To: All (#90)
And I agree with so much that is said here by so many of you
I too believe God is love
I do believe God created us with a channel between Creator and His creation
So He can always be in communication with us
and we can always be in communication with Him
Edgar Cayce, the great psychic, had prophesied back in the 1930s that by the year 2000 everyone would be in personal communication with God
The date turned out to be off
But every year now more and more are in personal communication with God
I know each of us have our own beliefs
and what is right for one to believe, could be wrong for another
So these are just my own beliefs
They are right for me, but could be wrong for another
Each of us knows for ourself what is best for us to believe IMHO
Love Palo
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#92)
#95. To: All (#93)
I think that is a great gift God gave us
I have made gazillion wrong choices for myself using my free will
But free will also gives us the freedom to change our mind
And I have changed my mind about so many things
Love Palo
#96. To: SOSO (#89)
IMO religion, churches just get in the way of the realtionship between God and Man.
#97. To: SOSO (#94)
You mean those at the Council of Nicaea? Those men?
#98. To: Liberator (#83)
Do we know what God expects of us? YES. He teaches love, kindness, honesty, honor -- all the virtues...and draws us nearer to Him (if we listen to Him more and less to our own narcissitic voice.)
I see it this way too
Love Palo
#99. To: Palo Verde (#93)
Edgar Cayce, the great psychic, had prophesied back in the 1930s that by the year 2000 everyone would be in personal communication with God
#100. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#89)
Just go to FR. There is a eucharist battle over there every day.
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#92)
If there are 2000 pages in the Bible, there are about 4 pages of original, directive law that apply to everybody, and just about everybody already knows that law anyway, because it's not just written on the pages -
#102. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#100)
"When a fox is in the bottle where the tweetle beetles battle with their paddles in a puddle on a noodle-eating poodle. THIS is what they call... ...a tweetle beetle noodle poodle bottle paddled muddled duddled fuddled wuddled fox in socks, sir!" - Seuss
#103. To: yukon, Palo Verde (#99)
I've never been able to comprehend why anyone would decline.
#104. To: ALL (#0)
#105. To: SOSO (#103)
perhaps it is becuase they believe that there is nothing greater than themself?
#106. To: GarySpFC (#104)
#107. To: yukon (#105)
I'm assuming we have crossed paths previously.
#108. To: SOSO (#106)
So the Earth really is a few thousand years old?
#109. To: SOSO (#101)
So Ghandi is in Heaven as is every good orthodox Rabbi and every good person that has not done those things.
#110. To: GarySpFC (#104)
#111. To: yukon (#99)
Hi Palo! It has been a long time since I've seen you post. Hope you are well.
I am happy to see you
I was an atheist till my early 40s when my life hit bottom
LOL at the end of my rope I called out for help from God
(nothing else had worked)
Then my next crisis was a few years later, when vet pronounced death sentence on my beloved dog
(she was my first dog)
First I turned to God for help, then to Jesus
I was able to hear both God and Jesus talking to me in my mind
Loving me, comforting me, reassuring me
Even tho my beloved dog did go to Heaven 4 months later
I wasn't willing to give up all that love and help
But I only called upon Jesus and God when I was having a terrible crisis
The next 4 years brought so many crises into my life that I had a chance to call on them many times
After that I decided to stay in personal communication with Jesus and God even when things were fine
LOL but I only stayed in communication 24/7 when another crisis hit
I guess that help is always available to all
It is up to each individual how much they want it?
LOL I guess I'm a gal who needs a lot of help
I love you
Palo
#112. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
Hello Gary. Happy New Year. Good to see you here.
#113. To: Palo Verde (#111)
I guess I'm a gal who needs a lot of help
#114. To: yukon (#113)
(Palo) I guess I'm a gal who needs a lot of help
(Yukon)... Apparently you and I have traversed some of the same rough waters. God bless you.
God bless you too
It is a miracle you and I are talking to each other on a forum again
I haven't been on a forum in 5 years
But it hit me hard when LP shut down
And TC instantly invited me over here
And I am very happy here now
Love and kisses, Palo
#115. To: SOSO (#19)
I totally concur. Mortal Man can never undrestand the Mind of God, much less the nature of the Infinite. That is why every version, every interpretation of the Bible is flawed. The very essence of language is a man made concept. God doesn't need language. In fact if you liereally believe the Bible, God created different languages to confound Man long before any Christian Bible was ever put into writting.
#116. To: Vicomte13 (#109)
No sexual immorality? Without forgiveness by God, everybody but autistic vegetables and cripples gets thrown into the fire because all human beings are normal sexually immoral at some point
#117. To: GarySpFC (#115)
If man cannot understand God, then accordingly His sending Christ to die on that old rugged cross was without purpose.
#118. To: GarySpFC (#108)
So the Earth really is a few thousand years old?
#119. To: Palo Verde (#111)
I was an atheist till my early 40s when my life hit bottom
LOL at the end of my rope I called out for help from God
(nothing else had worked)
Then my next crisis was a few years later, when vet pronounced death sentence
on my beloved dog
(she was my first dog) First I turned to God for help, then to Jesus
I was able to hear both God and Jesus talking to me in my mind
Loving me, comforting me, reassuring me
#120. To: SOSO (#81)
Did Paul preach transubstantiation? Did he preach the infallibility of the Pope? Did he teach that Gensis was to be taken literally as historical fact? Do I need to go on?
#121. To: SOSO (#82)
Awfully sloppy of God, wouldn't you say?
#122. To: SOSO (#116)
You forgot the repentence aspect of forgiveness.
#123. To: yukon (#85)
#124. To: Vicomte13 (#122)
You wrote about "Original Sin", but these words are not in Scripture.
#125. To: SOSO (#89)
I am much more persuaded by the notion of one knowing God and Jesus through their heart, through the gift of faith bestowed upon us by God Himself as opposed to knowing Him solely through Scripture.
#126. To: SOSO, liberator (#89)
IMO religion, churches just get in the way of the realtionship between God and Man. We do not need a flawed human institution to act as a middleman. I have enough personal flaws to satisfy that condition. And we don't need a made made channel to Him to realize what He already made available to us at birth.
#127. To: redleghunter (#125)
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.(KJV)
#128. To: SOSO, liberator (#91)
I would almost universally agree with that. There still are those true moral delimenas in which we as mortal men must make a choice between two conflicing moral actions, aka as the lesser of evils. IMO that is why God has endowed man with both free will and a conscience. Men seem to be willing to more freely exercise the former over the latter. Humans can rationalize just about anything if they turn down the volume of that inner Godly voice.
#129. To: Palo Verde (#93)
#130. To: redleghunter, liberator (#128)
I think the correct and logical approach to the moral dilemma you pose can easily be addressed with the following:
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#100)
When a fox is in the bottle where the tweetle beetles battle with their paddles in a puddle on a noodle-eating poodle. THIS is what they call... ...a tweetle beetle noodle poodle bottle paddled muddled duddled fuddled wuddled fox in socks, sir!" - Seuss
#132. To: redleghunter, SOSO (#128)
Well yes. God created us with a brain housing group between our ears. He expects us to use that brain, to employ some logic in our decisions. Just think of some old toolie engineer not using his brain. Disaster!
#133. To: SOSO (#101)
So Ghandi is in Heaven as is every good orthodox Rabbi and every good person that has not done those things. Great, that's what I always believed. BTW, I had to look up the word pharmakeia:) Is aspirin included?
#134. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#132)
Using a football analogy, charting X's and O's on the chaulkboard mean less than executing the play in the field, and adjusting accordingly to the defense. The clinical play design doesn't take into account the heart and will of the player overcome the wind, bad footing, or a bad day.
#135. To: redleghunter (#133)
I guess the question would be did Ghandi and the orthodox Rabbi come to Jesus Christ for salvation. Did they trust in the finished Work of Christ's death and resurrection?
#136. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#130)
Of course the overarching question is what man determines what God considers to be glorious to being with any degree of certainty?
#137. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#134)
Or calling the right play at the right time.
#138. To: GarySpFC, Vicomte13, liberator, SOSO (#104)
#139. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#136)
Are we back to the fundamental, "Love your neighbors as you love yourself"? Sharing the Gospel? Being Christ's light in the dark?
#140. To: Vicomte13 (#109)
Step 2 is: forgive other people. You're forgiven, by God, for your offenses against him, to the extent that you forgive others' offenses against you. The extent you refuse to do that, you're not forgiven either.
#141. To: redleghunter, SOSO (#133)
#142. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#139)
God says thou shall not kill. Does He mean that in the absoulte in every circumstance? Or does He expect you to protect the lives of your family even if it meant that you had to kill to do so?
#143. To: SOSO (#127)
I trust the point isn't lost on you.
#144. To: Liberator (#141)
Was/is Jesus a liar?
#145. To: SOSO, liberator (#130)
Of course the overarching question is what man determines what God considers to be glorious to being with any degree of certainty?
#146. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#144)
#147. To: redleghunter (#143)
In the Shakespearean lingo of the day "charity" was "love" to us. Just as britches are now pants:)
#148. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#146)
Outta gas, gents.
#149. To: Liberator, SOSO (#132)
Using a football analogy, charting X's and O's on the chaulkboard mean less than executing the play in the field, and adjusting accordingly to the defense. The clinical play design doesn't take into account the heart and will of the player overcome the wind, bad footing, or a bad day.
#150. To: SOSO, Liberator (#134)
Or calling the right play at the right time.
#151. To: SOSO (#135)
#152. To: SOSO, liberator (#139)
A trite example might be whether or not a man should stand by and watch his wife and children be murdered by a nutso when the man had the capacity to save his family by killing the nutso as he commenced to do harm to the man's family.
#153. To: Liberator, liberator, GarySpFc (#141)
I realize this is troubling and disturbing -- we all have friends and family who are compassionate, GOOD people. But they may not have bought into or understood the concept of Salvation for sinners through Jesus Christ. Nor believe in it. Red has cited Jesus' own words, warnings, and conditions in Scripture -- with authority. The most definitive, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
#154. To: SOSO, Liberator (#144)
That is not the issue. The issue are the ones that claim to relay Christ's words to us reliable scribes. There was quite a bit of time from when Christ actually spoke His words to when they were wriiten down.
#155. To: Liberator (#146)
#156. To: SOSO (#135)
When? Was there a deathbed conversion or acceptance? Or did they see the light once they actually saw the Light?
#157. To: GarySpFC (#156)
#158. To: SOSO (#144)
That is not the issue. The issue are the ones that claim to relay Christ's words to us reliable scribes. There was quite a bit of time from when Christ actually spoke His words to when they were wriiten down. And most of the writting is not from firsthand interaction with Christ but via hearsay. Memories are fallible. Language is fallible. There has been more than ample opportunity for slippage from Christ's mouth to your and my ear.
Just for illustration, let’s think of Matthew. Let’s suppose Matthew’s Gospel was written in the year 75. It might have been written some years earlier, maybe even a few years later, but we’ll just say, in the year 75. How long did it last? How long did it circulate?
I asked a professor, when I was in grad school many years ago, this very question. “How long do you think the autographs lasted?” I asked. “Oh,” he said, “I don’t know—10, 20 years.” The answer, at that time, seemed reasonable to me. We think of our cheap paperbacks, read several times—the spine begins to crack; pages start to fall out. Surely these precious documents would have been eagerly read by many people over and over again.
So after 10 or 20 years, maybe the original Matthew was falling to pieces and was discarded, and other copies were made, and so on. In fact, if—let’s say every manuscript lasted about 10 years, and then there was a copy made, and that copy lasted 10 years, and another copy was made. Over the course of 150 years—or from, say, the year 75 to 225—we could have as many as 15 generations. Each time there’s a new copy made, probably some more scribal errors are introduced; more variance enters into the text.
So after 15 such generations, who knows? Maybe the text of Matthew in AD 225 would be very different from the original Matthew that was composed by the evangelist in the year 75. So this is the backdrop, just—that kind of assumption. Is there evidence that shows that that is so? Or perhaps the evidence shows something else.
Of course, this is wonderful, because the books then can be studied together. We not only have copies of literature, but we have letters that have dates on them. We have correspondence talking about the books—requests that a new one be copied, or a request that one that had been loaned out be returned, and so forth. And so this kind of information has enabled scholars to reconstruct the history of the library, as it were.
Now, I’m talking about 53 libraries—not archives, business papers, and that sort of thing, but libraries, [consisting] of literature. The smallest library that’s been analyzed had 12 books in it, and some of the largest have close to 1,000 books. Many of these libraries that were found intact were recovered from the dry sands of Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, where about a half million texts were recovered from 1896 on into the 20th century, when the digging finally came to an end.
What we’ve learned is that these libraries contained books that were in use, before being retired or discarded—were in use anywhere from 150 years to 500 years. It was noticed that most of these books fell in the 200- to 300-year range before being retired or discarded or thrown out. This has enormous implications for our understanding of the NT manuscripts and [for] our question: How long were they used? What was their longevity before they were retired or thrown out?
#159. To: SOSO (#147)
Worse yret, when it comes to scripture much of it is in dead languages. And for those that are still around the nuances of words have changed over time. One cannot be certain what the nuance of the word agape was two thousand years ago.
#160. To: TooConservative (#86)
You would know.
#161. To: CZ82 (#160)
(Edited)
Shouldn't that read "As if you would know"? /s
#162. To: GarySpFC (#159)
Let's see. I have one love letter from my sweetie, and I'm having trouble understanding what she means by the word "love." Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have 35,000 letters from her, and she used the word love in many of them.
#163. To: TooConservative (#162)
#164. To: SOSO (#124)
But the act is amply described, as is the consequences to Adam and Eve and their progeny. A rose by any other name my friend.
#165. To: redleghunter (#151)
#166. To: GarySpFC (#159)
Let's see. I have one love letter from my sweetie, and I'm having trouble understanding what she means by the word "love." Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have 35,000 letters from her, and she used the word love in many of them.
#167. To: redleghunter, SOSO, liberator, vicomte13 (#152)
That's easy. If we have the capacity to stop the shedding of innocent blood and do nothing about it, then we are guilty of that shed blood. So, if killing the nut protects innocent life we have a moral right to defend.
#168. To: GarySpFC (#158)
All that hearsay upon hearsay in God's Word has made it null and void.
#169. To: GarySpFC (#158)
This has enormous implications for our understanding of the NT manuscripts and [for] our question: How long were they used? What was their longevity before they were retired or thrown out?
#170. To: Vicomte13 (#164)
#171. To: SOSO, GarySpFC (#147)
Worse yret, when it comes to scripture much of it is in dead languages. And for those that are still around the nuances of words have changed over time. One cannot be certain what the nuance of the word agape was two thousand years ago.
#172. To: GarySpFC, redleghunter, viconte13, Liberator (#159)
Let's see. I have one love letter from my sweetie, and I'm having trouble understanding what she means by the word "love." Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have 35,000 letters from her, and she used the word love in many of them.
#173. To: SOSO, GarySpFc, liberator (#172)
It is much more assuring if you hear/feel God communicating to you Himself that He loves you.
#174. To: SOSO (#139)
God says thou shall not kill. Does He mean that in the absoulte in every circumstance? Or does He expect you to protect the lives of your family even if it meant that you had to kill to do so?
#175. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc, liberator, redlegnuter (#174)
#176. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#173)
The very evidence The Father loves us. He gave us Jesus Christ:
#177. To: SOSO (#172)
#178. To: GarySpFC (#177)
#179. To: SOSO (#176)
(Edited)
#180. To: GarySpFC (#179)
Is God a liar?
#181. To: SOSO (#180)
#182. To: SOSO (#170)
Did God originally create Adam to be physically immortal?
#183. To: redleghunter (#140)
You missed the overarching piece. The actual Gospel.
#184. To: GarySpFC (#181)
#185. To: Vicomte13 (#182)
Perhaps if a man never sins.......then {he} might not die.
#186. To: SOSO (#175)
If anythnig you are certainly thorough.
#187. To: TooConservative (#161)
#188. To: SOSO (#185)
Jesus never sinned yet He did die.
#189. To: Vicomte13 (#188)
#190. To: CZ82 (#187)
I have no doubt he's not religious he's just trying to make religious people out to be a hypocrites while trying to portray himself as a saint, talk about a legend in his own mind.
#191. To: SOSO (#189)
#192. To: Vicomte13 (#183)
#193. To: All (#191)
(Edited)
I find the tradition to be unsupported by the text, and unneccessary because it explains nothing that requires explaining, so I don't accept it. It doesn't bother me that people do, but it seems pretty irrelevant to what God said.
#194. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#191)
I think that word immortality means what it does to biologists: "will not die of its own accord".
#195. To: SOSO (#194)
So here we are in 2015 arguing over the definition of a contemporary word in a contemporary language about something that happened thousands, if not millions, of years ago. How ironic, no?
#196. To: Vicomte13 (#195)
#197. To: Vicomte13 (#195)
So, our second discussion, about the meaning of the words "mortal" and "immortal" is, to you, a discussion of Scripture, because you think that concept is in Scripture. But to me it's just a discussion of the parameters of a modern word, because neither the word nor the concept in the tradition you believe is actually IN the Scripture.
#198. To: SOSO (#196)
The generall accepted position of all the christian based sects is that thanks to Adam and Eve man is born with sin, namely Original Sin. Some sects believe that the newborn's soul is lost if it dies before it was bapitized.
#199. To: SOSO (#196)
The generall accepted position of all the christian based sects is that thanks to Adam and Eve man is born with sin, namely Original Sin. Some sects believe that the newborn's soul is lost if it dies before it was bapitized.
#200. To: SOSO (#197)
(Edited)
The word die is in introduce the very beginning of Scripture. It was introduced in Scipture by God Himself. If that isn't a direct reference to mortality by God nothing is.
#201. To: GarySpFC (#199)
That is NOT the belief of all Christians.
#202. To: Vicomte13 (#200)
"Do this and you'll die" is a warning.
#203. To: SOSO (#201)
I am aware of that. So what? That only adds to the weight of my contention about the imperfections of the written Bible.
#204. To: SOSO (#202)
Christian notion of original sin. It explicitly appears first in 2 Esdras 7:118 (a book of the Apocrypha)...
#205. To: Vicomte13 (#204)
I am sitting here with my Orthodox Study Bible open to 2 Esdras, Chapter 7. There are 27 verses in this chapter, and it's all about Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem.
#206. To: GarySpFC (#203)
Your unbelief in the face of Scripture amazes me.
#207. To: SOSO (#205)
Is not the citation of Paul correct?
#208. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
Status: Logged In; Check Pings Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles
#209. To: Liberator, vxh (#208)
#210. To: A K A Stone (#208)
#211. To: Vicomte13 (#210)
#212. To: A K A Stone (#211)
Why is it not hypocritical to say God doesn't heal nada doesn't happen. Then you say he heals you.
#213. To: A K A Stone (#211)
Yes I am in a position to say you are not a Catholic. Because you said you don't have what you refer to as the traditional view. You said that is the Catholic view.
#214. To: Vicomte13 (#213)
(Edited)
Catholicism is not like some little pastpr-centered Church, where everybody has to believe the same narrow set of doctrines.
#215. To: Vicomte13 (#213)
You're blind to how very obnoxious you are. Why don't you and VxH form a new denomination. You can call yourself the "JERKS FOR JESUS".
#216. To: Vicomte13 (#213)
#217. To: Vicomte13 (#213)
don't ask you about your religion, because I really don't care what you believe, what you practice, what you do. I only attack yours BECAUSE you attack mine and me so continuously.
#218. To: A K A Stone (#216)
You don't believe the Bible so you will never know the truth.
#219. To: A K A Stone (#217)
Also you don't believe only the words in red in the Bible. Because it never says anything about a pope or praying to a non virgin dead oerson
#220. To: A K A Stone (#215)
Why don't you follow Christ instead of the antichrist faggot loving pope sinner.
#221. To: A K A Stone (#217)
Because I want you to get it right and not believe some man made Catholic bullshit.
#222. To: A K A Stone (#214)
You were tripping on acid or you're just a liar.
#223. To: CZ82, watchman (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]