|
Post by rational on May 28, 2015 20:06:57 GMT -5
Fair enough...it's a lengthy thread that I didn't make it all the way through, and skimmed some of what I did make it through. So you just enjoy playing the devil's advocate! (should that really come as a surprise?) As I said, if you want to explore a subject arguing the opposing view can add clarity.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 28, 2015 21:17:29 GMT -5
"Somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality". Do you think that God finds it acceptable? Read your Bible and you'll see that God finds it abhorrent. As for God preventing moves to legalise gay marriage, why would He prevent it? There's much He can prevent and doesn't because He gave mankind free will. Diminishing power of God? I'd hate to be the person that thinks that. And of course, there's your spiky little question about same sex couples being welcome in the meetings. If you ever attended the meetings, you'd know the answer. Openly practising gay people will not be allowed to profess in the meetings. Married same sex couples will not be allowed to profess in the meetings. Of course there are gay people professing in the meetings but they claim not to be practising and if they are secretly, then that's between them and God. Just because the state recognises same sex marriage, churches are not required to follow the ruling. Simple really and I'd have thought you would have known that. Now that I've finally got round to responding as I said I would ..... First, do I think God finds it acceptable? Personally I don't think God gives a hoot what anyone's sexual orientation is nor what one gets up to with one's partner in the bedroom. Do I think it bothers God one bit that two people who love each other and are committed to each other and who plan to live together and have sexual relations with each other and wish to get a little piece of paper from the state which says they are married and confers on them certain rights ... just like the two people who live in the house next door have a little piece of paper from the state which says they are married and confers on them certain rights? No. I don't. Secondly I don't believe that the bible really contains the views of God. I believe it merely contains the views of the men who ascribed their own views to their own God in their writing, views which reflected the customs and prejudices of the writers at the time. I actually find many of the views expressed in the bible a lot more abhorrent than the idea of two women I've never met signing a marriage register somewhere and having a nice day out. Thirdly, I would suggest that a reason God might prevent gay marriage could be that (according to many who post here) He finds it so abhorrent that he might wish to prevent such evil taking place. God has a history of ridding the earth of evil if one believes what is written in the bible. However I don't share their views and happen to believe that God would not wish to prevent gay marriage happening even if He could. As I said earlier, I don't believe God gives a hoot. I think 'free will' is merely a convenient way to explain away God's astonishing failure to intervene to prevent the worst evils in the world. He's either a good God and an all-powerful God or He's not. I see little to persuade me that he is therefore I have come to realise that he is not. Finally my spikey little question wasn't intended to be a spikey little question but rather was an attempt to highlight what is now a possible scenario, albeit an unlikely one. So thank you for providing a response. However I am aware of a gay couple continuing to profess while openly engaged in a relationship (albeit it not a blatantly open one) so the issue may not be quite as clear cut as you think. And of course things change over time. Only this week the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin said the Catholic Church 'needs to take a reality check' following the referendum. I know they're not there yet, but who'd have thought? And of course the 2x2 Church changes its views on moral issues too. Who would have believed twenty years ago that television accessible iPads and iPhones would become standard issue equipment in a worker's suitcase? In my day having access to a telly in your home got you booted out. Matt10 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. As for your claim about a gay couple professing, I don't know where you get that idea. If it's true however, they're being deceitful about their relationship and they'll not only have to answer for their sodomy but their lies too. All that stuff about the Catholic Church- well, that's their business and they can throw more morals to the wind if they like, it's not our church. I'm touched by your concern about iPads and iPhones. It mirrors the concern in the meetings. Internet technology is just one more challenge facing the meetings today and the workers can only guide as best they can and trust the friends (and themselves) have sufficient love for God to resist the things that corrupt our minds. Or, dear help us, cause us to be a lazy liberal.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2015 21:45:53 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. If I accept your claim I have to wonder about the other 612 Mitzvot (Commandments). God's laws. Do you wear clothes of mixed materials? Or are there commandments that you chose to ignore? Where is sodomy being encouraged? I agree that in most places it is no longer illegal for a married couple to engage in sodomy if they so desire. Should a couple be arrested for sodomy Suppose the gay couple were females? Let's take sodomy off the board. Is there still a problem?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 29, 2015 1:16:01 GMT -5
You may have missed this part of one of my posts awhile back: And then the following exchange: rational -> maryhig Did you even notice that I have stated that I do not believe there is a lesbian slant that could be supported? You seemed to want to continue discussing it though so I decided to go along. Consider it practice!maryhig -> rational Yes I did, so why bring it up in the first place then. If you don't believe there is a lesbian slant in it?Which I responded to minutes ago. Fair enough...it's a lengthy thread that I didn't make it all the way through, and skimmed some of what I did make it through. So you just enjoy playing the devil's advocate! (should that really come as a surprise?) "Playing the devil's advocate" is the beginning of wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 29, 2015 1:17:49 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. If I accept your claim I have to wonder about the other 612 Mitzvot (Commandments). God's laws. Do you wear clothes of mixed materials? Or are there commandments that you chose to ignore? Where is sodomy being encouraged? I agree that in most places it is no longer illegal for a married couple to engage in sodomy if they so desire. Should a couple be arrested for sodomy Suppose the gay couple were females? Let's take sodomy off the board. Is there still a problem? The deadly weapon : scissors.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 29, 2015 1:55:09 GMT -5
Now that I've finally got round to responding as I said I would ..... First, do I think God finds it acceptable? Personally I don't think God gives a hoot what anyone's sexual orientation is nor what one gets up to with one's partner in the bedroom. Do I think it bothers God one bit that two people who love each other and are committed to each other and who plan to live together and have sexual relations with each other and wish to get a little piece of paper from the state which says they are married and confers on them certain rights ... just like the two people who live in the house next door have a little piece of paper from the state which says they are married and confers on them certain rights? No. I don't. Secondly I don't believe that the bible really contains the views of God. I believe it merely contains the views of the men who ascribed their own views to their own God in their writing, views which reflected the customs and prejudices of the writers at the time. I actually find many of the views expressed in the bible a lot more abhorrent than the idea of two women I've never met signing a marriage register somewhere and having a nice day out. Thirdly, I would suggest that a reason God might prevent gay marriage could be that (according to many who post here) He finds it so abhorrent that he might wish to prevent such evil taking place. God has a history of ridding the earth of evil if one believes what is written in the bible. However I don't share their views and happen to believe that God would not wish to prevent gay marriage happening even if He could. As I said earlier, I don't believe God gives a hoot. I think 'free will' is merely a convenient way to explain away God's astonishing failure to intervene to prevent the worst evils in the world. He's either a good God and an all-powerful God or He's not. I see little to persuade me that he is therefore I have come to realise that he is not. Finally my spikey little question wasn't intended to be a spikey little question but rather was an attempt to highlight what is now a possible scenario, albeit an unlikely one. So thank you for providing a response. However I am aware of a gay couple continuing to profess while openly engaged in a relationship (albeit it not a blatantly open one) so the issue may not be quite as clear cut as you think. And of course things change over time. Only this week the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin said the Catholic Church 'needs to take a reality check' following the referendum. I know they're not there yet, but who'd have thought? And of course the 2x2 Church changes its views on moral issues too. Who would have believed twenty years ago that television accessible iPads and iPhones would become standard issue equipment in a worker's suitcase? In my day having access to a telly in your home got you booted out. Matt10 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. As for your claim about a gay couple professing, I don't know where you get that idea. If it's true however, they're being deceitful about their relationship and they'll not only have to answer for their sodomy but their lies too. All that stuff about the Catholic Church- well, that's their business and they can throw more morals to the wind if they like, it's not our church. I'm touched by your concern about iPads and iPhones. It mirrors the concern in the meetings. Internet technology is just one more challenge facing the meetings today and the workers can only guide as best they can and trust the friends (and themselves) have sufficient love for God to resist the things that corrupt our minds. Or, dear help us, cause us to be a lazy liberal. Emerald, perhaps you should take your own advise and read your Bible. "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."
You don't know anything of the kind! That word or even that act, was not mentioned by Jesus!
Luke 17:28
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; Ezekiel 16:48-50
48 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 29, 2015 4:02:42 GMT -5
These are also Paul's words: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. " - 1 Cor 11 v 1 So that's how Christianity became more about what Paul said than what Christ said! Always wondered how that happened. Paul never met Christ and the apostles that did didn't agree with what Paul had to say for the most part. And he wasn't too keen on women and a whole lot of other things, mush of which was pointless. Can't help feeling he never forgot his background.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 29, 2015 4:19:32 GMT -5
Fair enough...it's a lengthy thread that I didn't make it all the way through, and skimmed some of what I did make it through. So you just enjoy playing the devil's advocate! (should that really come as a surprise?) "Playing the devil's advocate" is the beginning of wisdom. More like the beginning of mischievousness!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 29, 2015 4:29:51 GMT -5
So that's how Christianity became more about what Paul said than what Christ said! Always wondered how that happened. Paul never met Christ and the apostles that did didn't agree with what Paul had to say for the most part. And he wasn't too keen on women and a whole lot of other things, mush of which was pointless. Can't help feeling he never forgot his background. I think Paul was a very strong man in God! There's nothing wrong with his teachings, he followed Jesus well. And I believe he will have lived what he taught so he would have been leading by example, as he did say he died daily! Also look at James, Jude and Peter, 2nd Peter is really strong. Not all softy, softy! And they knew Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 29, 2015 7:43:28 GMT -5
And he wasn't too keen on women and a whole lot of other things, mush of which was pointless. Can't help feeling he never forgot his background. I think Paul was a very strong man in God! There's nothing wrong with his teachings, he followed Jesus well. And I believe he will have lived what he taught so he would have been leading by example, as he did say he died daily! Also look at James, Jude and Peter, 2nd Peter is really strong. Not all softy, softy! And they knew Jesus! I wonder if this is where the phrase ' la petite mort' originated? Sounds like it could have the same meaning! I think Paul was probably one of those extraordinary speakers who could convince people Jesus spoke to him and make it work. He probably had a lot of connections from his former job and appeared to have a religious fervor that the rest were not up to matching. So when push cane to shove, Paul carried the way. And given his ability to convince people to his way of thinking soon had a following that would have been difficult to dismiss or oppose.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 29, 2015 8:16:02 GMT -5
I think Paul was a very strong man in God! There's nothing wrong with his teachings, he followed Jesus well. And I believe he will have lived what he taught so he would have been leading by example, as he did say he died daily! Also look at James, Jude and Peter, 2nd Peter is really strong. Not all softy, softy! And they knew Jesus! I wonder if this is where the phrase ' la petite mort' originated? Sounds like it could have the same meaning! I think Paul was probably one of those extraordinary speakers who could convince people Jesus spoke to him and make it work. He probably had a lot of connections from his former job and appeared to have a religious fervor that the rest were not up to matching. So when push cane to shove, Paul carried the way. And given his ability to convince people to his way of thinking soon had a following that would have been difficult to dismiss or oppose. I believe Paul was of God, I can tell by what he preached! I've got no doubt at all! He was full of the holy spirit!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 29, 2015 9:21:31 GMT -5
I've got no doubt at all! He was full of the holy spirit! I have no doubt at all. He was certainly full of something. Some people have a gift and can convince others to follow them. Jim Jones. Sun Myung Moon. William Irvine. George Walker. Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr. and Bonnie Nettles. Many believed. as you do, that these people had something to offer and were willing to follow them without question. Questioning is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 29, 2015 16:19:16 GMT -5
I wonder if this is where the phrase ' la petite mort' originated? Sounds like it could have the same meaning! I think Paul was probably one of those extraordinary speakers who could convince people Jesus spoke to him and make it work. He probably had a lot of connections from his former job and appeared to have a religious fervor that the rest were not up to matching. So when push cane to shove, Paul carried the way. And given his ability to convince people to his way of thinking soon had a following that would have been difficult to dismiss or oppose. I believe Paul was of God, I can tell by what he preached! I've got no doubt at all! He was full of the holy spirit! It was because of Paul that Christianity became full of Pagan theology.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 29, 2015 17:13:41 GMT -5
I believe Paul was of God, I can tell by what he preached! I've got no doubt at all! He was full of the holy spirit! It was because of Paul that Christianity became full of Pagan theology. Can you elaborate on that please Bob?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 29, 2015 17:33:51 GMT -5
Questioning is a good thing. The questions I have been willing to ask have done far more to improve the quality of my life than any other single factor.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 29, 2015 19:25:07 GMT -5
It was because of Paul that Christianity became full of Pagan theology. Can you elaborate on that please Bob? Modern Christianity is replete with Pagan influence. But to my mind the most important Pagan influence on Christianity is the Christian concept of God -- it is not Jewish, it is Pagan. It is Islam that holds to the Jewish concept of God. Just as important, though, is the fact that Christians even call them selves Christians. A "Christ" is NOWHERE to be found in Jewish tradition, and Jesus never called himself the son of God until the Roman church got their hands on the gospel according to John.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 20:55:45 GMT -5
Quote - "... and Jesus never called himself the son of God until the Roman church got their hands on the gospel according to John."
If you are going to read everything on the subject, do you read the primary source - the Old Testament? You would read that the Messiah, as Son of God, would be born of a virgin, grow as a normal child, preach deliverance to the people, be rejected of his nation, his kinsfolk and siblings, suffer, bear the sins of the world, be unjustly tried, crucified and be resurrected. And after this event would the nation of Israel go into captivity, and the Gospel is preached in all the world.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 29, 2015 22:31:07 GMT -5
Quote - "... and Jesus never called himself the son of God until the Roman church got their hands on the gospel according to John." If you are going to read everything on the subject, do you read the primary source - the Old Testament? You would read that the Messiah, as Son of God, would be born of a virgin, grow as a normal child, preach deliverance to the people, be rejected of his nation, his kinsfolk and siblings, suffer, bear the sins of the world, be unjustly tried, crucified and be resurrected. And after this event would the nation of Israel go into captivity, and the Gospel is preached in all the world. And if you are going to read the primary source of the OT you had better learn what the words they use meant to them. A "messiah" was never never a person of any divinity -- a messiah was a king, albeit supposedly chosen by god, and a messiah for the simple reason that he had OIL POURED OVER HIS HEAD which made him king. Every king in Israel was called a messiah, and any non Israeli king who supported the Jews/Israelis was called a messiah too. Just because the Romans didn't know what messiah meant and decided it had to be a word for a "Christ" now Christians cannot be convinced that they don't mean the same thing at all. In this age of access to information people have no excuse for not understanding this. Even Catholic scholars will tell you the same thing. And they also know how the mistake was intentionally made and propagated and disguised so it would be accepted as an infallible cornerstone of the orthodox religion/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 0:47:48 GMT -5
Quote - 'And if you are going to read the primary source of the OT you had better learn what the words they use meant to them. A "messiah" was never never a person of any divinity -- a messiah was a king, albeit supposedly chosen by god, and a messiah for the simple reason that he had OIL POURED OVER HIS HEAD which made him king. Every king in Israel was called a messiah, and any non Israeli king who supported the Jews/Israelis was called a messiah too. Just because the Romans didn't know what messiah meant and decided it had to be a word for a "Christ" now Christians cannot be convinced that they don't mean the same thing at all.
In this age of access to information people have no excuse for not understanding this. Even Catholic scholars will tell you the same thing. And they also know how the mistake was intentionally made and propagated and disguised so it would be accepted as an infallible cornerstone of the orthodox religion"
And did you know that "hell" comes from the word "gehena" (sorry for the spelling) and it referred to the place where bodies were burned. Therefore there's no such place as hell. Or so the Mormons or JW's would have you believe. It's all in the language - you have to know the Hebrew, or Ancient Greek, or Aramaic, or study the Dead Sea Scrolls rah rah rah.
And one way to fight the bible is to seek out the multiple meanings of words. So if we wrote the bible today some future academics would say "Back in 2015 the word "Hell" was used for something bad, ie 'I had a hell of a day,' therefore the word hell doesn't mean a lost eternity at all."
So yes, Messiah meant King, Jerusalem meant that place in Israel, hell was a cemetery etc.. And some academics, predisposed to atheism, would tell you, "That's all" when patently it isn't "all." Language is symbolic - it relies on metaphors.
What SOME (or even 'MOST') Jews thought of the coming Messiah is incidental to what THE BIBLE meant by the term. And that's because such Jews don't feel the need for a redeemer to pay the price for their sins. But Bob, if you DO want to take full advantage of the age of the internet, then search for the counter argument.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 30, 2015 2:25:06 GMT -5
Quote - "... and Jesus never called himself the son of God until the Roman church got their hands on the gospel according to John." If you are going to read everything on the subject, do you read the primary source - the Old Testament? You would read that the Messiah, as Son of God, would be born of a virgin, grow as a normal child, preach deliverance to the people, be rejected of his nation, his kinsfolk and siblings, suffer, bear the sins of the world, be unjustly tried, crucified and be resurrected. And after this event would the nation of Israel go into captivity, and the Gospel is preached in all the world. And if you are going to read the primary source of the OT you had better learn what the words they use meant to them. A "messiah" was never never a person of any divinity -- a messiah was a king, albeit supposedly chosen by god, and a messiah for the simple reason that he had OIL POURED OVER HIS HEAD which made him king. Every king in Israel was called a messiah, and any non Israeli king who supported the Jews/Israelis was called a messiah too. Just because the Romans didn't know what messiah meant and decided it had to be a word for a "Christ" now Christians cannot be convinced that they don't mean the same thing at all. In this age of access to information people have no excuse for not understanding this. Even Catholic scholars will tell you the same thing. And they also know how the mistake was intentionally made and propagated and disguised so it would be accepted as an infallible cornerstone of the orthodox religion/ 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. Messiah, means anointed one and yeshua (Jesus) means salvation. Messiah in Greek is Christos, in English it's Christ. So in English, Christ Jesus is, anointed saviour. Fascinating So Jesus Christ is in the old testament! Isaiah 62:11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. In Hebrew, in this verse, the word salvation is written yeshua. And messiah which is Christ is also written in the old testament. God doesn't lie, Jesus is the Christ and our saviour. If we follow him! Also the Jews don't believe the messiah is God, (well I'm with them on that one). There is only one God and the Jews, wherein Jesus was born into, believe this also.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 30, 2015 2:35:20 GMT -5
The bible is the very beginning of exclusiveness. Written for a particular people in a particular area. There were millions of people through out the world. Were they any less precious to God?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 2:42:36 GMT -5
Quote - 'And if you are going to read the primary source of the OT you had better learn what the words they use meant to them. A "messiah" was never never a person of any divinity -- a messiah was a king, albeit supposedly chosen by god, and a messiah for the simple reason that he had OIL POURED OVER HIS HEAD which made him king. Every king in Israel was called a messiah, and any non Israeli king who supported the Jews/Israelis was called a messiah too. Just because the Romans didn't know what messiah meant and decided it had to be a word for a "Christ" now Christians cannot be convinced that they don't mean the same thing at all. In this age of access to information people have no excuse for not understanding this. Even Catholic scholars will tell you the same thing. And they also know how the mistake was intentionally made and propagated and disguised so it would be accepted as an infallible cornerstone of the orthodox religion" And did you know that "hell" comes from the word "gehena" (sorry for the spelling) and it referred to the place where bodies were burned.
Yes, I did indeed know that. So you agree with me that Christians have the wrong interpretation of that too. In fact, Christians got the word hell from Scandinavian Paganism -- "Hel" was some guy in the afterlife underworld. Of course not. Just like the Jews did not believe in a "christ". Neither did/do Jews believe in a Christian style hell. Actually, Mormons have some appropriate attitudes about the Bible. And the JW's are much like the 2x2s -- their doctrine is focused on narrowly selected scriptures. No. That's not enough. You have to study European Paganism is you want to really know where Christian interpretations come from. They wouldn't have to even tell you Christians copied them -- it's just too evident. Of all the courses I took in religious studies, there was more of modern Christian thought in Paganism than any other course I took. Don't mention to me about fighting the Bible. The Bible is one of the most important books in the history of the world. I have no problem with what the Bible says or what the intention of the writers were. And I have no fight with people who are ignorant of the history of the Bible -- I just have a habit of educating myself beyond the Christian dogma. At a future time, a "hell of a day" will mean nothing in itself. It will be the description of the "hell of a day" that will determine our use of the word hell. So I expect that if a good Christian were to write the Bible today he would describe it as modern Christians think of it -- a place of eternal torment, and the educated people in the future would use the description to decide what the writer meant by hell, somewhat like scholars today do to determine what gehenna meant to in Jesus time. On the other hand, the poorly educated people in the future, religious or otherwise, will read the word "hell" and have fantasies of celebrating -- if they keep the expression "hell of a good time". This is where your closed mindedness and prejudices and lack of intense historic studies jumps in. Well educated people today read extensively outside the accepted Bible literature, and those experts in ancient languages get to see if words line gehenna were used in contexts other than just the meaning in the scripture. Neither you nor I have that expertise, and I'm rather sure no one else in this forum has that background -- I just accept what those people tell me about language rather than people who use their modern Christian mind to speculate about all the meanings of these ancient languages. As a matter of fact, the number of Christian preachers who consider that the words "thee" and "thou" in English are some kind of sacred language words for referring to God and Jesus is a clear indication of their ignorance of the history of their own language, say nothing about how ignorant they are of ancient history. You don't have any authority to make that statement. 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. You obviously have no idea what I've been doing with the last decade of my life. I've not been sitting here imagining explanations for things I never understood about religion of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 30, 2015 3:06:50 GMT -5
The bible is the very beginning of exclusiveness. Written for a particular people in a particular area. There were millions of people through out the world. Were they any less precious to God? 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 saved by his life. By death to self (death 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 letting 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!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2015 3:21:33 GMT -5
And if you are going to read the primary source of the OT you had better learn what the words they use meant to them. A "messiah" was never never a person of any divinity -- a messiah was a king, albeit supposedly chosen by god, and a messiah for the simple reason that he had OIL POURED OVER HIS HEAD which made him king. Every king in Israel was called a messiah, and any non Israeli king who supported the Jews/Israelis was called a messiah too. Just because the Romans didn't know what messiah meant and decided it had to be a word for a "Christ" now Christians cannot be convinced that they don't mean the same thing at all. In this age of access to information people have no excuse for not understanding this. Even Catholic scholars will tell you the same thing. And they also know how the mistake was intentionally made and propagated and disguised so it would be accepted as an infallible cornerstone of the orthodox religion/ 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.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 30, 2015 3:22:20 GMT -5
The problem with that argument is time. Before the time of Jesus how did people through out the world know about God or was that the sole perogative of a group of people known as the Israelites. After the time of Jesus and until very recently there was vast number of people who simply did not know about Jesus, simply because of the constraints of travel, Did they go to a lost eternity because of this? So back to my original statement, the bible is the very beginning of exclusiveness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 3:31:38 GMT -5
What the Jews think of Jesus is irrelevant. Their own book told them they would not accept him. And in not accepting him they would lose their nation (and for millions - their lives.)
I was surprised to realise that the Jews don't believe in any "son of God." Their king is purely a man, like David. Some verses are of interest - Zechariuh 9:10 "his dominion shall be from sea to sea… even to the ends of the earth." This is the Jewish king. But the verse before this reads, "behold thy king cometh unto thee: he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass…" This is Jesus. And then in Zec 12:9 "… I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." That's the Jewish king again. But the next verse, "… and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced…" That's Jesus. The Jews don't know who David refers to when he wrote, "they pierced my hands and my feet" but they know it can't be David. Even in the suffering messiah of Isaiah 53 we read at the end, "… I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong…" That's the Jewish king.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 30, 2015 3:43:14 GMT -5
The bible is the very beginning of exclusiveness. Written for a particular people in a particular area. There were millions of people through out the world. Were they any less precious to God? 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.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 30, 2015 3:49:23 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.
|
|