|
Post by Ed on Jan 19, 2015 9:07:48 GMT -5
If you really do believe that love is the Kingdoms banner, then why judge that Baptist couple who love taking care of orphans? Why does your love qualify you for the Kingdom but their love is worthless?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 12:29:20 GMT -5
If you really do believe that love is the Kingdoms banner, then why judge that Baptist couple who love taking care of orphans? Why does your love qualify you for the Kingdom but their love is worthless? Probably the same reason why the Muslim or Buddhist couples are 'lost'. That's why religions divide people when they make these assumptions about each other.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2015 13:46:17 GMT -5
Actually, I don't exactly blame religion...at least by itself! It's the hardened hearts that use religion to be hurtful to other people and often times to give them a one-up over some people!
This is the very same thing that Jesus spoke about, those having to justify their stoning an adulteress and letting the adulterer go free, and feeling they were doing the right thing. They were using the laws of Moses to justify what they were doing or wanting to do. Then God saw all of this through the years and His major cry was "I would mercy, not sacrifice." Then He tells the folks to go and learn what that means. God doesn't like people using religious material, laws, positions etc to justify what they are doing or wanting to do!
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 19, 2015 17:04:45 GMT -5
Jesus did the dividing among religions when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me."
But people have further subdivided among others who profess belief in Christ as an atoning sacrifice and have works that give evidence of their salvation. They judge them as lost because the four walls and roof looks different and they don't recognize workers as their chief shepherd.
Should be, "Love - and a few other things we think are important - is the Kingdom's Banner".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 18:06:17 GMT -5
Jesus did the dividing among religions when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." But people have further subdivided among others who profess belief in Christ as an atoning sacrifice and have works that give evidence of their salvation. They judge them as lost because the four walls and roof looks different and they don't recognize workers as their chief shepherd. Should be, "Love - and a few other things we think are important - is the Kingdom's Banner". Well then it is conceivable that Jesus was wrong. He may be a good role model in some aspects of his teachings, but he's not the first to say what he had to say.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 19, 2015 18:32:43 GMT -5
In the Mosaic law, God's commandments pretty well covered the entire life possibilities with the first two commandments which are all about love! Jesus just opened that up a bit more like when he said if someone hated their brother then he was a murderer, etc....thus any emotion besides love within the mind and heart isn't acceptable for it brings people to trespassing against one another!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 1:09:20 GMT -5
If you really do believe that love is the Kingdoms banner, then why judge that Baptist couple who love taking care of orphans? Why does your love qualify you for the Kingdom but their love is worthless? who is judging that Baptist couple? who's love? who is you?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 20, 2015 10:29:55 GMT -5
Are you saying the one who defined love is wrong?
He's the first to say it and back it up, not only in sacrificial death but in resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 20, 2015 14:01:14 GMT -5
Are you saying the one who defined love is wrong? He's the first to say it and back it up, not only in sacrificial death but in resurrection. I don't believe in the resurrection and I am appalled at blood sacrifices of humans. The Buddha said everything Jesus later said and he backed it up too, by living it. The roman empire wasn't around to take offence to him like they did to Jesus and so he lived and Jesus died. Jesus defined love? Really? No one had it figured out before he was born? I tend to disagree with that completely.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 21, 2015 12:42:23 GMT -5
Snow, I'm not sure where you're at with scripture - but here's some relevant verses worth thinking about;
1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
John 13:1 before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.
Col 1:16-17 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Love was His plan before it was our idea.
As far as the resurrection, is there anything that would convince you? -It was prophecied long before it happened -There were over 500 witnesses -Peter went from denying/hiding to public speaking
Snow, the one who created life has power over death!
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 21, 2015 15:32:19 GMT -5
Snow, I'm not sure where you're at with scripture - but here's some relevant verses worth thinking about; 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.John 13:1 before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.Col 1:16-17 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Love was His plan before it was our idea. As far as the resurrection, is there anything that would convince you? -It was prophecied long before it happened -There were over 500 witnesses -Peter went from denying/hiding to public speaking Snow, the one who created life has power over death! Ed Jesus wasnt the first. Before him there was a number of other gods with the same characteristics. Buddha,Horus etc. Just a different age. Time.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 21, 2015 17:05:59 GMT -5
Snow, I'm not sure where you're at with scripture - but here's some relevant verses worth thinking about; 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.John 13:1 before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.Col 1:16-17 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Love was His plan before it was our idea. As far as the resurrection, is there anything that would convince you? 1) -It was prophecied long before it happened 2) -There were over 500 witnesses 3) -Peter went from denying/hiding to public speaking
Snow, the one who created life has power over death! As to whether the resurrection actually happened isn't proved by any of those items that you wrote.
1) Actually, you need to remember that the gospels were written many years after the the supposed "resurrection." Those writers knew the OT & were not concerned about actual facts. It isn't that they "lied" but rather that they & the ones who were reading it didn't expect it be factual.
2) Witnesses, no matter how many, really prove nothing. Just look at the huge number of people today who insist that they have witnessed extraterrestrial aliens.
3) Why should it make any difference that one man went from "denying/hiding" to believing anything?
When you actually step out side of the belief that the bible is correct in every thing and compare it to other historical documents, you can see that the bible has no more legs to stand on than many other ancient documents
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 21, 2015 18:10:27 GMT -5
Snow, I'm not sure where you're at with scripture - but here's some relevant verses worth thinking about; 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.John 13:1 before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew (was fully aware) that the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved those who were His own in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.Col 1:16-17 For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Love was His plan before it was our idea. As far as the resurrection, is there anything that would convince you? -It was prophecied long before it happened -There were over 500 witnesses -Peter went from denying/hiding to public speaking Snow, the one who created life has power over death! No you probably don't know me very well. So, here is how I stand on scripture. I don't believe that Jesus was anything but a man that was more enlightened than his followers, that he is on par in some ways with the Buddha and other masters throughout the centuries and he definitely isn't the son of God (anymore than anyone else is anyway) and he is not God the son either. He was never prophesied as many try to say and he died too young. That pretty much sums up what I think for you. However, I understand that you believe in scripture and that's okay with me. That's something else about me
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 0:10:07 GMT -5
In addition to the resurrection we have a great glimpse of Jesus, as He is today, in Mark 9 on the mountain. Peter, who witnessed this first hand, writes in 2 Peter 1 "And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount".
Surely you are not saying that 2 Peter was written by the Peter who was one of the 12 apostles are you?
Many scholars rejects Petrine authorship because of instances as happening after the death of Peter.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 1:25:07 GMT -5
Surely you are not saying that 2 Peter was written by the Peter who was one of the 12 apostles are you?
Many scholars rejects Petrine authorship because of instances as happening after the death of Peter.
And you know categorically that it was not written by Peter? Prove it and I will believe you! And do you know that it was absolutely, unquestionably, & unequivocally written by Peter the apostle?
If you can prove it I will believe you. Challenging authorship of the Petrine epistles
Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5]
Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6][/u] The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, t[/b] hus a date before 60 is not probable.
wiki
[/i]
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 23, 2015 12:59:44 GMT -5
So someone took a survey of all "Biblical scholars" and found out that "most" have reached the conclusion you stated?
I doubt it. For several reasons. Extremely unlikely. Much more likely is the source of your information has a bias and *prefers to think* that most are in agreement with the statement quoted.
There are thousands of existing, hand-written manuscripts that have survived. If they weren't authentic, they would never have been safe-guarded by the church for so long. There is nothing in Peter's writings that disagree with any of the other 39 writers of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 23, 2015 13:39:04 GMT -5
No you probably don't know me very well. So, here is how I stand on scripture. I don't believe that Jesus was anything but a man that was more enlightened than his followers, that he is on par in some ways with the Buddha and other masters throughout the centuries and he definitely isn't the son of God (anymore than anyone else is anyway) and he is not God the son either. He was never prophesied as many try to say and he died too young. That pretty much sums up what I think for you. Snow, when you say, "he definitely isn't the son of God" - I'm interested to know how you reached this definitive conclusion. Would you say that Jesus was at times, a liar? A little bit looney? Or did he just hang out with a group of liars who falsely attributed all sorts of words and actions to him? So you don't believe in the resurrection. You don't believe in any of the miracles that he did. You don't believe what he said about himself or what others (inc. prophets)said about him. Basically, you don't believe the Tanakh or the Bible. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Do you believe everything in the Tripitaka? I understand better now, thank you. =) Snow, would you tell me something that you know beyond a shadow of any doubt to be good. What is good? With kind regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 23, 2015 17:22:07 GMT -5
I was trying to tell you what I believe. Yes that is what I believe. I don't consider him to be a liar, I just don't think the bible is credible and I also don't believe that he was fully understood by those he was trying to 'enlighten'. I am agnostic in that I don't know one way or the other if there is a higher being but I guess you could say that I am atheist when it comes to believing in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. That god is definitely not a being I believe in. That's just my personal belief and don't need anyone else to believe what I believe.
As far as telling you what is good, I am not sure I understand your question. I'm not sure anything is 100% good because even unconditional love seems to have it's problems. But I would say that overall all I truly find inspiring is love. But as humans we do tend to mess that up from time to time too.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 18:30:48 GMT -5
So someone took a survey of all "Biblical scholars" and found out that "most" have reached the conclusion you stated? I doubt it. For several reasons. Extremely unlikely. Much more likely is the source of your information has a bias and *prefers to think* that most are in agreement with the statement quoted. There are thousands of existing, hand-written manuscripts that have survived. If they weren't authentic, they would never have been safe-guarded by the church for so long. There is nothing in Peter's writings that disagree with any of the other 39 writers of scripture. Really all you have to do is to read I & II Peter for yourself . No need to rely on those pesky "Biblical scholars" You can figure it out for yourself.
Then Just google: petrine epistles
You will find many sites to check. Here is but one.
The Second Epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter is an even later document than I Peter. There are many proofs of this, all of which adds to a compelling case both for its lateness and non-Petrine authorship.
The first evidence involves the fact that it is later than I Peter for it calls itself the second epistle (II Peter 3:1).
Secondly, the epistle is very closely related, both in style and content to the epistle of Jude, in itself a very late work, definitely written during the second century CE (probably around 125 CE). [9]
A further evidence against Petrine authorship (and for its late date) is that the epistle refers to Paul's epistles as though they were already collected together and seems to consider them as scriptures (i.e., sacred writings):
II Peter 3:15-16 ... our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him ... His letters contain certain things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Clearly the historical Peter could not have seen the collected letters of Paul and considered them in the same breath as the other Scriptures. [10]
Another indication of the lateness of II Peter was the fact that some of the readers of his epistles have grown impatient waiting for the second coming that was endlessly delayed. The early Christians certainly expected the second coming of Jesus Christ to happen during their lifetime. We find the author of this epistle twisting words out of their normal meanings to explain this delay: [11]
II Peter 3:8 ... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his coming, as some men count slackness...
Perhaps one of the strongest argument against Petrine authorship is that its authenticity was denied by many Christians down to the fourth century.
www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/authorpeter.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2015 23:05:34 GMT -5
Jan 23, 2015 12:39:04 GMT -6 Ed Ballard said:
"Would you say that Jesus was at times, a liar? A little bit looney? Or did he just hang out with a group of liars who falsely attributed all sorts of words and actions to him?"
This is limiting the options that a person can believe about a person or situation.
I believe that Jesus was none of your options.
One has to consider the times he lived in & his understanding of his Jewish beliefs.
He could easily have thought that he could be the Messiah that could lead his people out from under the bondage of the Romans.
After all, he wasn't the only at the time that thought they were the messiah.
So no, he didn't have to be untruthful, or mentally ill. Neither did his followers have to only be a "group of liars."
No doubt they were sincere, honest people who had the same hopes as he did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 0:51:07 GMT -5
Ed are my questions not worth answering?
your statement.( If you really do believe that love is the Kingdoms banner, then why judge that Baptist couple who love taking care of orphans? Why does your love qualify you for the Kingdom but their love is worthless?)
my questions. (who is judging that Baptist couple? who's love? who is you?)
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 27, 2015 13:21:56 GMT -5
Hi Virgo, sorry I was off grid for a long weekend. Your question is definitely worth answering.
I offered the scenario above as an example of how some 2x2's would view what others do. For example, I know a 2x2 who believes that being a muslim or a baptist is equal as far as being part of false religion (and being bound for hell).
"You" is any exclusivist who feels the same way and can offer a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 27, 2015 13:48:13 GMT -5
Jan 23, 2015 12:39:04 GMT -6 Ed Ballard said: "Would you say that Jesus was at times, a liar? A little bit looney? Or did he just hang out with a group of liars who falsely attributed all sorts of words and actions to him?"
This is limiting the options that a person can believe about a person or situation.
I believe that Jesus was none of your options.
One has to consider the times he lived in & his understanding of his Jewish beliefs.
He could easily have thought that he could be the Messiah that could lead his people out from under the bondage of the Romans.
After all, he wasn't the only at the time that thought they were the messiah.
So no, he didn't have to be untruthful, or mentally ill. Neither did his followers have to only be a "group of liars."
No doubt they were sincere, honest people who had the same hopes as he did.
So you don't believe what Jesus said, but he's not a liar or looney. You don't believe what Jesus did, but the people who witnessed it firsthand and recorded it aren't liars either. So you believe the Bible has been corrupted? dmmichgood, when you actually step out side of the belief that the bible is correct in every thing, you step off a cliff. Please understand, instead of "many", as you assert, there are no other historical documents to compare it to. -How many historical books had 40 writers separated by time and space all writing about the same subject? -How many historical books have over 5,000 handwritten manuscripts? FYI - Homer's Iliad had 643. There is more literal evidence for Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar. Speaking of Caesar, “Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, and Napoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and schools combined; without the eloquence of schools, He spoke words of life such as never were spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of any orator or poet; without writing a single line, He has set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art and sweet songs of praise, than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. Born in a manger, and crucified as a malefactor, He now controls the destinies of the civilized world, and rules a spiritual empire which embraces one-third of the inhabitants of the globe. There never was in this world a life so unpretending, modest, and lowly in its outward form and condition, and yet producing such extraordinary effects upon all ages, nations, and classes of men. The annals of history produce no other example of such complete and astonishing success in spite of the absence of those material, social, literary, and artistic powers and influences which are indispensable to success for a mere man. Christ stands, in this respect also, solitary and alone among all the heroes of history, and presents to us an insolvable prob¬lem, unless we admit him to be more than man, even the eternal Son of God.” -Philip Schaff
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 3:13:59 GMT -5
Hi Virgo, sorry I was off grid for a long weekend. Your question is definitely worth answering. I offered the scenario above as an example of how some 2x2's would view what others do. For example, I know a 2x2 who believes that being a muslim or a baptist is equal as far as being part of false religion (and being bound for hell). "You" is any exclusivist who feels the same way and can offer a reason. why on earth then didn't you just state it was just a dreamed up scenario and not a truth? writing it the way you did made it look like it was an actual happening being passed off as being true
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 30, 2015 10:35:42 GMT -5
Are you saying the one who defined love is wrong? He's the first to say it and back it up, not only in sacrificial death but in resurrection. Jesus certainly teach love and showed what he meant by it. He loved the Father so that he was willing to do the Father's every will. He loved the sinner so, that he didn't hesitate to take their place on the cross. Again, it is evident from Gen. 1 to Rev. that God never had any intention of not keeping mankind with Him forever. But having given mankind a mind then mankind became so wrapped up in their own minds' importance and became disobedient......apparently the love from God to mankind is stable, but love from mankind to God is like quicksand at times! We read many times in the OT that God told the CoI that He wanted them to prove to Him that they loved HIm with all their heart, mind, and soul! But mankind's mind became fickle many times over! So the verse that declares what God did to save mankind in order that they would live with Him forever says "That God so LOVED the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 11:24:47 GMT -5
Are you saying the one who defined love is wrong? He's the first to say it and back it up, not only in sacrificial death but in resurrection. Jesus certainly teach love and showed what he meant by it. He loved the Father so that he was willing to do the Father's every will. He loved the sinner so, that he didn't hesitate to take their place on the cross. Again, it is evident from Gen. 1 to Rev. that God never had any intention of not keeping mankind with Him forever. But having given mankind a mind then mankind became so wrapped up in their own minds' importance and became disobedient......apparently the love from God to mankind is stable, but love from mankind to God is like quicksand at times! We read many times in the OT that God told the CoI that He wanted them to prove to Him that they loved HIm with all their heart, mind, and soul! But mankind's mind became fickle many times over! So the verse that declares what God did to save mankind in order that they would live with Him forever says "That God so LOVED the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life." Certainly the OT god was very egotistical.
For someone who was suppose to be so powerful you would think that HE wouldn't have needed so much reassurance !
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jan 30, 2015 15:53:38 GMT -5
Egotistical: excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself; self-centered.
dmmichgood, can you imagine that God's interest in promoting himself is because he knows that he's exactly what we need?
It's not that God needs reassurance, it's us. We need reassurance. If we are content with feeling that we love God, it will fade. Love is a verb and we must act on it if we truly love. This is basic.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 30, 2015 18:25:13 GMT -5
Egotistical: excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself; self-centered. dmmichgood, can you imagine that God's i nterest in promoting himself is because he knows that he's exactly what we need? It's not that God needs reassurance, it's us. We need reassurance. If we are content with feeling that we love God, it will fade. Love is a verb and we must act on it if we truly love. This is basic. If the OT god isn't egotistical, why are the very first 3 commandments about him?
10 Commandments List
You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make idols. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. No, I can't imagine that God's interest in promoting himself is for our good.
Christians wouldn't need any reassurance from any god of the bible if they didn't believe the bible to be the only holy document out of many such documents of other religions.
Why believe that that particular ancient document, the bible, -is the only true one?
Actually, for that matter, why believe in any of them?
|
|