Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 3:53:26 GMT -5
This is one for Walker1903's website: "Truth is Truth even if it becomes a platitude."
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 30, 2015 3:56:11 GMT -5
No Jesus told his deciples to go and preach the gospel throughout the world. His loves all of us! God wants us all! And the gospel is Jesus' life, so by following him and living the life he taught us to, saves us from the sins of this world.
We are reconciled by his death, but s aved by his life. By death to self (d eath to our fleshly sinful nature) and Christ living in our hearts through Gods holy spirit, keeps us alive in God! Living the way Jesus taught us to and l etting him in our hearts and denying the flesh and Satan within, brings us to God. And he will help us overcome as he has done! God wants us in his sons image. Taking up our crosses, denying ourselves and following him. But we are sinners, and the only way we can do this is to let Christ in to cast Satan out! Letting the light in, and darkness out!When a light goes on in a dark room, you see everything within it. When Christ through Gods holy spirit enters into the heart he will show your all your sins and help you remove them. and he will make you a bright and shining light to guide others, as he is with you and gives you the strength to overcome through faith and prayer and love of God! Maryhig, do you know what the definition of a platitude means?
All these that I underlined (and more, actually) are platitudes.
platitude:
"a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. synonyms: cliché, truism, commonplace, banality, old chestnut, bromide, inanity,
What is "fleshly sinful nature?"
How does he "live in our hearts ?"
What are the characteristics of this " flesh and Satan that are we suppose to be denying?
Taking up our crosses, What constitutes a "cross?"
How are "we are sinners," What are we actually doing that causes us to be "sinners?" What constitutes "letting Christ in" and "casting Satan out? etc. etc.
I thought you believed in God at one time? If you had truly believed, you would know what this means? You say you used to believe, so what did take up your cross, deny yourself and follow me mean? I haven't said that, Jesus did. So if you believed, then you must know what it means. So what did it mean to you, during your professing years?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 30, 2015 4:12:46 GMT -5
I've just been reading about all this, it's fascinating! But anyway, now remember I'm no expert but this is what I have been reading. That the Jews do believe there is a future messiah coming to save them. It doesn't matter if there have been ten thousand messiahs. This one is the one bringing them salvation. You're undoubtedly reading authoritative people -- but you're not doing it with a teacher. "This one is the one bringing them salvation." is probably not exactly what you read -- or it should not have been there. Jews are God's chosen people and have no need of soul salvation -- they do expect to be saved from oppression by gentile nations. Neither do Jews believe that people have souls -- hence no going to heaven and no need for hell. When they die, they're dead. Yes, messiah means anointed one -- but in Israel and Judah kings were literally anointed -- oil poured over their head. Jews, and we have no indication that Jesus disagreed, never believed in a "christ" or a "soul savior" -- Benjamin Netanyahu would be called a messiah if they'd anointed him with oil, literally. Messiahs were human kings. Unfortunately, no, Jesus did not mean salvation. Jesus was a rather popular name in that day. In fact, in the language that Jesus spoke, Judas and Jesus had the same name. Christians didn't like for them to have the same name so they changed Judas' name. No, Messiah is not Christos in Greek. "Christs" were common in Greek history. Christs were literally/physically the offspring of unions between gods and human women, and the christ would live his life helping to prepare humans for an afterlife with the gods -- remember, Jews didn't have souls, but Greeks did. Paul was a Jew, but he was a Helenistic Jew and they were thoroughly acculturated with Greek Paganism. I'm not going to speculate about how Paul came to his "christ" concept for Jesus, but the translation of messiah into Christ in Greek is an absolute error in translation, and Saint Augustine, the one credited with promoting the Christ concept, was fully aware of that because he wrote about the problems he had combining the Christ concept with the belief that Jesus has been a human being as Jews anticipated their messiah would be. Because the Roman church tried to abolish non-Christ beliefs from the community of Jesus-believers, Christians today have thoroughly bought into the notion that Jesus was both messiah and Christ. Yes, fascinating, but unfortunately modern day Christians do not worship Jesus, they worship Jesus Christ, as religious scholars will tell you -- nothing resembling the messiah Jesus that the Jews cheered upon his arrival into Jerusalem before his crucifixion. Unfortunately Jews find this interpretation of this scripture somewhat hilarious -- for a number of reasons. First of all, the mistranslation pulls the savior concept out of the meaning. Then people who read the rest of the book of Isaiah realize that the prophesy was fulfilled according to the Hebrew understanding of that prophesy. And FWIW, it is entirely possible that Paul had not read the book of Isaiah. There was a Jewish Bible compiled before his time, but Helenistic Jews did not accept it as authoritative. The present Jewish Bible was not compiled until some time after Paul was gone. True, Jews don't believe the messiah is/was God. I don't understand the second sentence at all. I do have a teacher, who is also the author of the bible. God! And I really don't need to see Jesus Christ written in the old testament (although it is there). I see him right through it. Through Gods prophets! I live by faith. And I believe in God completely. You just have to look at Jesus' teachings and life to know he was from God! He was stronger than all the prophets combined! You can see that God gave him wisdom! You can see God right through him! I can see he is the light of the world!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 30, 2015 5:43:33 GMT -5
My mistake for asking you what you thought God thinks of sodomy. I did tell you to read your Bible though and while you may have, nothing you have said suggests you did. Anyway, there are many references as to what God thinks of sodomy but I'll not list them here as others already have. You don't think the Bible contains the views of God? That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I believe it does contain the views of God because every moral instruction is against human nature. It's easy to be liberal like you, it takes no effort to "live and let live". It's easy not to make a stand against God's ordinances. I don't particularly give a stuff about sodomites but I cannot allow myself to think it's alright or "normal" because it's against God's law. That's the God I believe in, whose word I believe in. God has a history of ridding the world of evil, you're right about that, so who's to say he'll not rid the world of this? Jesus spoke in Luke 17 of the signs of the end times. He said things would be as they were in the days of Lot. We know what he meant: sodomy. And now we see sodomy is being not just legalised but actively embraced and encouraged to the point that expressing a contrary opinion about sodomy is an arrestable offence. What makes you think that Luke 17 has anything to do with Sodomy? Sounds more like people living it up! Perhaps like we read in Ezekiel 16 that the sin of Sodom was living it up and failing to help the poor and needy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 6:19:49 GMT -5
Quote - "What makes you think that Luke 17 has anything to do with Sodomy? Sounds more like people living it up! Perhaps like we read in Ezekiel 16 that the sin of Sodom was living it up and failing to help the poor and needy."
If you mean "poor and needy" as in being materially destitute, then don't look into the New Testament for sympathy. Jesus and his followers did little to help the poor and needy. There's was a spiritual mission.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 30, 2015 6:53:13 GMT -5
bert I mean the poor and needy as similar to the poor and needy that Jesus made a radical stand for by protesting in the economic, political and religious institution in Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 30, 2015 6:57:53 GMT -5
No. Language is first of all abstract representations of concrete and definable actions with rules of presentation (grammar) that allow for meaningful communication of information. Not even abstract concepts need to be expressed in metaphors. Metaphor is primarily intended for the pleasure of the reader -- I don't know that the writers of the Bible had that intention. Euphemism, on the other hand. is intended to make vocabulary more politically correct -- common enough in the Bible. As for symbolism in the Bible -- the first one Christians think they find in the Bible is the "serpent" -- they'd never imagine or accept what a snake symbolized in the fiction of the day -- all they know is what Augustine decided what it would mean when he had to promote his doctrine of original sin. I'm guessing either a snake for fertility or otherwise maybe the snake as Apep but as I said I'm guessing. Can you please elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 30, 2015 7:00:20 GMT -5
Quote - "What makes you think that Luke 17 has anything to do with Sodomy? Sounds more like people living it up! Perhaps like we read in Ezekiel 16 that the sin of Sodom was living it up and failing to help the poor and needy." If you mean "poor and needy" as in being materially destitute, then don't look into the New Testament for sympathy. Jesus and his followers did little to help the poor and needy. There's was a spiritual mission.It think Jesus did help the poor and needy too. Because when Judas had the bag, the deciples thought Jesus was talking about the poor. John 13:29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 7:07:07 GMT -5
bert I mean the poor and needy as in the poor and needy that Jesus made a radical stand for by protesting in the economic, political and religious institution in Jerusalem. There were many (if not most) Jews who really believed that if Jesus was truly the Messiah He would feed the hungry, champion the marginalized, free the Jews and provide a prosperity gospel. When it became clear that He only used this language in a spiritual sense then the Jews turned against Him. Jesus' is not recorded as having given a cent, farthing, rarzoo, dime, nickel, dollar, pound, pence, mina, talent or sheckel to the poor. In fact, he helped many rich people, and liked to stay in their homes.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 30, 2015 7:35:17 GMT -5
bert I mean the poor and needy as in the poor and needy that Jesus made a radical stand for by protesting in the economic, political and religious institution in Jerusalem. There were many (if not most) Jews who really believed that if Jesus was truly the Messiah He would feed the hungry, champion the marginalized, Really!? You will have to explain how he did not champion the marginalised. It seems to me that he spent some time with lepers, tax collectors and the blind just to mention a few. And yet he is recorded as providing the instruction give to the poor? Please provide evidence of Jesus helping rich people increase their riches or at minimum maintain those riches.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 30, 2015 7:55:40 GMT -5
No. Language is first of all abstract representations of concrete and definable actions with rules of presentation (grammar) that allow for meaningful communication of information. Not even abstract concepts need to be expressed in metaphors. Metaphor is primarily intended for the pleasure of the reader -- I don't know that the writers of the Bible had that intention. Euphemism, on the other hand. is intended to make vocabulary more politically correct -- common enough in the Bible. As for symbolism in the Bible -- the first one Christians think they find in the Bible is the "serpent" -- they'd never imagine or accept what a snake symbolized in the fiction of the day -- all they know is what Augustine decided what it would mean when he had to promote his doctrine of original sin. A good paragraph to remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 8:02:45 GMT -5
Quote - "Please provide evidence of Jesus helping rich people increase their riches or at minimum maintain those riches." I didn't say that. I said Jesus helped rich people, or called them into this Ministry.
Quote - "And yet he is recorded as providing the instruction give to the poor?" Where?
Quote - "Really!? You will have to explain how he did not champion the marginalised. It seems to me that he spent some time with lepers, tax collectors and the blind just to mention a few." Yes, Jesus demonstrated who He was by healing. He didn't heal everyone, he didn't set up medical clinics, he didn't tell future generations to go healing. Jesus didn't champion any group. He brought the Gospel - to the poor, to the rich, to the weak, to the strong. No difference. Material poverty is not a virtue,but spiritual poverty is.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 30, 2015 8:43:19 GMT -5
Quote - "Please provide evidence of Jesus helping rich people increase their riches or at minimum maintain those riches." I didn't say that. I said Jesus helped rich people, or called them into this Ministry.Quote - "And yet he is recorded as providing the instruction give to the poor?" Where?Matthew 19 (he could have said give it to the ministry, keep it, spend it etc) instead give to the poor. Yes the bible builds the character of Jesus by illustrations of healing, time spent with the marginalised etc. Jesus had compassion for those who were outcasts and those who were poorly treated. He was a radical protesting in the temple. IMO Jesus was against political oppression, economic exploitation and the religious legitimisation of these via the temple system, high priests and imperial Rome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 11:19:18 GMT -5
It sounds something like "My father gave me my blue eyes, therefore my father is not dead. Belief in a God has never been based on logic though Bob. It's a heart thing, so I'm told. Not true Snow. There are many logical reasons to believe in God. It's not just a heart-thing. You statement is illogical.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 30, 2015 11:36:23 GMT -5
Belief in a God has never been based on logic though Bob. It's a heart thing, so I'm told. Not true Snow. There are many logical reasons to believe in God. It's not just a heart-thing. You statement is illogical. Okay, tell me why it's logical to believe in a supernatural being that no one has ever seen. I have been told many times on here that it is a 'heart thing', which is why I said it was a heart thing, so I've been told. I am just repeating what other believers have told me. You disagree with them I guess?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 13:38:17 GMT -5
Not true Snow. There are many logical reasons to believe in God. It's not just a heart-thing. You statement is illogical. Okay, tell me why it's logical to believe in a supernatural being that no one has ever seen. I have been told many times on here that it is a 'heart thing', which is why I said it was a heart thing, so I've been told. I am just repeating what other believers have told me. You disagree with them I guess? No, I didn't say I disagree with them. It can be a heart thing, but one can easily come up with reasons (apart from the heart) to believe in God. And they're perfectly logical reasons also. Not to mention the fact that the majority of humans believe in God, and I find it rather crass for someone to flippantly assume that the majority of humans are not logical in their theistic beliefs. I know you've heard the arguments, and you clearly have chosen to not believe the arguments. Until the day comes when science can explain the mystery of LIFE (biogenesis), I think that atheism does not have the answers to life. I'm not going to discuss this on this thread, and it'll completely take away from what others are trying to discuss another subject.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 30, 2015 13:43:46 GMT -5
Not even abstract concepts need to be expressed in metaphors. Metaphor is primarily intended for the pleasure of the reader -- I don't know that the writers of the Bible had that intention. Might be rather difficult to say what their intention was. It is not something that I have studied, either formally or informally. But still, I would tend to side with Joseph Campbell on this one: (From The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers) MOYERS: What is the metaphor? CAMPBELL: A metaphor is an image that suggests something else. For instance, if I say to a person, "You are a nut," I'm not suggesting that I think the person is literally a nut. "Nut" is a metaphor. The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.
For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy, Astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility. But if you read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body’s dynamic source.
Or, the Joseph Campbell quote that tends to drive literalists from both believer and non-believer camps nuts: (From Joseph Campbell: A Hero's Journey, documentary) God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being. Those are categories of thought. I mean it's as simple as that. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that's the ground of your own being. If it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts. Those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts. And so, they're lies. Those are the atheists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 13:53:32 GMT -5
I've had several trips to Australia looking for them platitudes. I've found where they live but they seem to be elusive little things. My dad shot a platitude the other evening. It's skin is hanging up on the wall of the barn.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 30, 2015 13:58:54 GMT -5
Okay, tell me why it's logical to believe in a supernatural being that no one has ever seen. I have been told many times on here that it is a 'heart thing', which is why I said it was a heart thing, so I've been told. I am just repeating what other believers have told me. You disagree with them I guess? No, I didn't say I disagree with them. It can be a heart thing, but one can easily come up with reasons (apart from the heart) to believe in God. And they're perfectly logical reasons also. Not to mention the fact that the majority of humans believe in God, and I find it rather crass for someone to flippantly assume that the majority of humans are not logical in their theistic beliefs. I know you've heard the arguments, and you clearly have chosen to not believe the arguments. Until the day comes when science can explain the mystery of LIFE (biogenesis), I think that atheism does not have the answers to life. I'm not going to discuss this on this thread, and it'll completely take away from what others are trying to discuss another subject.
Seeing as this thread is entitled "Ireland 1 God 0" and started out as a discussion of Irish voters voting overwhelmingly to legalise same sex marriage, I think you could feel free to discuss anything on this thread without taking away from what others are saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 14:04:41 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion, and very relevant to our times. But, first of all, this talk about Christians not eating shell fish, etc. is just plain silly. There's clearly a distinction in the bible between the 10 commandments and the Mosaic Law. The 10 commandments were given before the Mosaic Law. The 10 Commandments were given for all time, for all people. The Mosaic Law (Ceremonial Law) was given to Israel, and was temporal. So, anyone with any knowledge about the scriptures should know this. Regarding Ruth and Naomi being lesbians.... that is just plain crazy talk, and clearly is being perpetuated just to rock the boat. If someone really believes this, they are ignorant. My take on the gays: live and let live. Let them live their lives and the rest of us can live our lives. Whatever a nation does in regards to gay rights shouldn't affect me at all. I don't give a darn what the Roman Catholic Church's stand is on this issue, or any other church for that matter. As long as they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone. The problem is, militant gays attempt to hijack small, private businesses, and even churches in an attempt to shame people. They are doing the same sort of thing that Christians have been accused of in the past: shaming, boycotting, legislating, etc. This makes them hypocrites in my opinion. But, as I said, Live and Let Live. The friends are actually smart on keeping their faith separate from the government. In the USA that's how it should be anyway. We do civil unions, apart from a church. We don't register our church. We don't hold property in the name of the church, etc. etc. That's pretty smart. It'll be darned difficult for a radical gay couple to claim discrimination against us, as they are in so many places.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 18:17:32 GMT -5
Belief in a God has never been based on logic though Bob. It's a heart thing, so I'm told. Not true Snow. There are many logical reasons to believe in God. It's not just a heart-thing. You statement is illogical. I invite you to list half a dozen logical reasons to believe in the Christian God. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 18:41:05 GMT -5
Not true Snow. There are many logical reasons to believe in God. It's not just a heart-thing. You statement is illogical. I invite you to list half a dozen logical reasons to believe in the Christian God. Matt10 Invitation rejected. I'm not getting into it. Either one will accept the evidence or they wont. There's a whole philosophy dedicated to the existence of God out there. There's nothing I can say that you can't find on the internet or in numerous books. However, if you're willing, I ask you to list half a dozen facts as to how life started in the universe. And, if you are willing, please list half a dozen reasons for the existence of matter. How did it come into existence?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 19:46:27 GMT -5
Not even abstract concepts need to be expressed in metaphors. Metaphor is primarily intended for the pleasure of the reader -- I don't know that the writers of the Bible had that intention. Might be rather difficult to say what their intention was. It is not something that I have studied, either formally or informally. But still, I would tend to side with Joseph Campbell on this one: (From The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers) MOYERS: What is the metaphor? CAMPBELL: A metaphor is an image that suggests something else. For instance, if I say to a person, "You are a nut," I'm not suggesting that I think the person is literally a nut. "Nut" is a metaphor. The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.
For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy, Astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility. But if you read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body’s dynamic source.
Or, the Joseph Campbell quote that tends to drive literalists from both believer and non-believer camps nuts: (From Joseph Campbell: A Hero's Journey, documentary) God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being. Those are categories of thought. I mean it's as simple as that. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that's the ground of your own being. If it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts. Those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts. And so, they're lies. Those are the atheists.Oh my gosh -- a myth -- in the same sentence as the Holy Bible. I'm going to send one of my most religious high school teachers after you. Yes, of course you are right. The problem is that we modern folk tend to treat myth as literature and spend a lot of academic time absorbing metaphor of yore -- not only what it really means, but why it got to be used as a metaphor of that meaning. On the other hand, the Bible, when treated as factual history and law and the living word of an almighty divinity -- we rely on theologians to convince us that god means precisely what he said according to THEIR theology and in OUR metaphors -- ignoring the fact that metaphor and euphemism don't translate well.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 19:50:53 GMT -5
You're undoubtedly reading authoritative people -- but you're not doing it with a teacher. "This one is the one bringing them salvation." is probably not exactly what you read -- or it should not have been there. Jews are God's chosen people and have no need of soul salvation -- they do expect to be saved from oppression by gentile nations. Neither do Jews believe that people have souls -- hence no going to heaven and no need for hell. When they die, they're dead. Yes, messiah means anointed one -- but in Israel and Judah kings were literally anointed -- oil poured over their head. Jews, and we have no indication that Jesus disagreed, never believed in a "christ" or a "soul savior" -- Benjamin Netanyahu would be called a messiah if they'd anointed him with oil, literally. Messiahs were human kings. Unfortunately, no, Jesus did not mean salvation. Jesus was a rather popular name in that day. In fact, in the language that Jesus spoke, Judas and Jesus had the same name. Christians didn't like for them to have the same name so they changed Judas' name. No, Messiah is not Christos in Greek. "Christs" were common in Greek history. Christs were literally/physically the offspring of unions between gods and human women, and the christ would live his life helping to prepare humans for an afterlife with the gods -- remember, Jews didn't have souls, but Greeks did. Paul was a Jew, but he was a Helenistic Jew and they were thoroughly acculturated with Greek Paganism. I'm not going to speculate about how Paul came to his "christ" concept for Jesus, but the translation of messiah into Christ in Greek is an absolute error in translation, and Saint Augustine, the one credited with promoting the Christ concept, was fully aware of that because he wrote about the problems he had combining the Christ concept with the belief that Jesus has been a human being as Jews anticipated their messiah would be. Because the Roman church tried to abolish non-Christ beliefs from the community of Jesus-believers, Christians today have thoroughly bought into the notion that Jesus was both messiah and Christ. Yes, fascinating, but unfortunately modern day Christians do not worship Jesus, they worship Jesus Christ, as religious scholars will tell you -- nothing resembling the messiah Jesus that the Jews cheered upon his arrival into Jerusalem before his crucifixion. Unfortunately Jews find this interpretation of this scripture somewhat hilarious -- for a number of reasons. First of all, the mistranslation pulls the savior concept out of the meaning. Then people who read the rest of the book of Isaiah realize that the prophesy was fulfilled according to the Hebrew understanding of that prophesy. And FWIW, it is entirely possible that Paul had not read the book of Isaiah. There was a Jewish Bible compiled before his time, but Helenistic Jews did not accept it as authoritative. The present Jewish Bible was not compiled until some time after Paul was gone. True, Jews don't believe the messiah is/was God. I don't understand the second sentence at all. I do have a teacher, who is also the author of the bible. God! And I really don't need to see Jesus Christ written in the old testament (although it is there). I see him right through it. Through Gods prophets! I live by faith. And I believe in God completely. You just have to look at Jesus' teachings and life to know he was from God! He was stronger than all the prophets combined! You can see that God gave him wisdom! You can see God right through him! I can see he is the light of the world! I thought we were talking about language. If you want to inject god into the use of language, yo9u ought to try glossolalia.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 20:03:35 GMT -5
No. Language is first of all abstract representations of concrete and definable actions with rules of presentation (grammar) that allow for meaningful communication of information. Not even abstract concepts need to be expressed in metaphors. Metaphor is primarily intended for the pleasure of the reader -- I don't know that the writers of the Bible had that intention. Euphemism, on the other hand. is intended to make vocabulary more politically correct -- common enough in the Bible. As for symbolism in the Bible -- the first one Christians think they find in the Bible is the "serpent" -- they'd never imagine or accept what a snake symbolized in the fiction of the day -- all they know is what Augustine decided what it would mean when he had to promote his doctrine of original sin. I'm guessing either a snake for fertility or otherwise maybe the snake as Apep but as I said I'm guessing. Can you please elaborate? You're on the right track, but I can't really elaborate without sorting through a whole lot of stuff that I haven't indexed. It makes sense when you think of it. Saint Augustine, the inventor of the original sin concept, believed women were filthy sinful creatures, and anything to do with sex was the vilest of all human activity. No wonder it spawned the notion that the snake was Satan.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 20:08:06 GMT -5
Okay, tell me why it's logical to believe in a supernatural being that no one has ever seen. I have been told many times on here that it is a 'heart thing', which is why I said it was a heart thing, so I've been told. I am just repeating what other believers have told me. You disagree with them I guess? No, I didn't say I disagree with them. It can be a heart thing, but one can easily come up with reasons (apart from the heart) to believe in God. And they're perfectly logical reasons also. Not to mention the fact that the majority of humans believe in God, and I find it rather crass for someone to flippantly assume that the majority of humans are not logical in their theistic beliefs. I know you've heard the arguments, and you clearly have chosen to not believe the arguments. Until the day comes when science can explain the mystery of LIFE (biogenesis), I think that atheism does not have the answers to life. I'm not going to discuss this on this thread, and it'll completely take away from what others are trying to discuss another subject.
All logic is not valid, however.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 20:11:08 GMT -5
Not true Snow. There are many logical reasons to believe in God. It's not just a heart-thing. You statement is illogical. I invite you to list half a dozen logical reasons to believe in the Christian God. Matt10 And make them valid arguments.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 30, 2015 20:13:32 GMT -5
Maryhig, do you know what the definition of a platitude means?
All these that I underlined (and more, actually) are platitudes.
platitude:
"a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. synonyms: cliché, truism, commonplace, banality, old chestnut, bromide, inanity,
What is "fleshly sinful nature?"
How does he "live in our hearts ?"
What are the characteristics of this " flesh and Satan that are we suppose to be denying?
Taking up our crosses, What constitutes a "cross?"
How are "we are sinners," What are we actually doing that causes us to be "sinners?" What constitutes "letting Christ in" and "casting Satan out? etc. etc.
I thought you believed in God at one time? If you had truly believed, you would know what this means?
You say you used to believe, so what did take up your cross, deny yourself and follow me you would know what this means?mean? I haven't said that, Jesus did. So if you believed, then you must know what it means. So what did it mean to you, during your professing years? Sure, I know what it means!
I have said those same things.
I also thought that was what I was doing, "taking up the cross, denying myself and following Jesus."
That is how I know that they are just platitudes: "trite, banal remarks expressed as if they were original or significant"
I was repeating meaningless statements the bible & what other people had said since the time I was born.
Had I been asked the same questions I asked you I could no more had answered those questions in a meaningful manner than you have.
|
|