|
Replies: 98
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Twice in the New Testament
Aug 13, 2022, 3:42 PM
|
|
it is said that the return of Christ would be within the first generation of believers lifetime….this prophecy has obviously failed miserably….
They won’t tell you this in Sunday school.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Since you are wrong and it's impossible for me to show...
Aug 14, 2022, 3:06 PM
|
|
you the passages you are misinterpreting you are obligated to show me which two passages are recording that promise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Since you are wrong and it's impossible for me to show...
Aug 14, 2022, 6:20 PM
|
|
Matthew 16:27-28
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
1 Thessalonians 4:15-16
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I suspected you were talking about those verses.
Aug 15, 2022, 3:45 PM
|
|
The second set of verses is Paul arguing that Jesus will someday return to rule the earth. If you study Thes you'll see Paul trying to ensure that church that the dead rise at the second coming of Jesus and that the end is not upon them to continue spreading the Gospel.
The first set is the announcement of His resurrection an the establishment of His spiritual Kingdom. Previous to Jesus, those who believed in The Christ believed Christ was to come. During His life on earth He declared that He had come.
At His resurrection He had finished His role in paying for the sins of believers previous to His lifetime, during His live on earth and those of us who lived after His ascension. If you recall, He went to the holding place for those who believed in Him previous to His crucifixion.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
This is awesome!
Aug 14, 2022, 3:16 PM
|
|
Jesus must be so embarrassed right now as you have finally disproven his life’s work. Nice job!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 14, 2022, 11:47 PM
|
|
Thanks for posting Big Dog. An alternate view is always welcomed. As the philosopher Abelard said, paraphrased: "Now that I have professed my beliefs, it is my duty to challenge them rigorously"
My response isn't a necessarily a defense of Christianity as the only way to understand what we commonly call God, but I do believe you have mis-interpreted both of these verses.
If you read the entire chapter of Matthew 16, you will see that Jesus is the one speaking, and he is not predicting his return, but his death. He is saying "some of you standing here today will see me die."
The same thing applies to 1 Thess 4, although I believe it is Paul, or an associate of Paul speaking this time. He's writing to the new church in Thessalonica about 20 years after Jesus's death. He's saying that Jesus's dead believers will be taken to heaven first, followed by the living.
As a side note, this is why many Christians want to be buried at the Eastern Gate of Jerusalem and on the adjacent Mount of Olives. They want to be first in line  ">">">">">">">">
“Then he brought me back the way of the gate...toward the east; and it was shut. He shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” Ezekiel 44:1-3 (KJV)
Eastern Gate from the Mount of Olives, looking across Kidron Valley. The Muslim Dome of the Rock is the shiny thing in the middle, and the blocked up Eastern Gate is the blocky structure in the wall just to the right and down in the pic
/mount-of-olives-Filippo-Maria-Bianchi-GettyImages-864413040-001-5a68a199d8fdd50037c3b25f.jpg)
Now, whether you believe or not is still purely a matter of faith, but I don't believe either of those examples says Jesus would return in his early follower's lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 6:31 AM
|
|
How do you get from the passage that Jesus is referring to his death? He’s clearly using language that suggests he’s talking about the second coming as dying wouldn’t be seeing him in all his glory???
I’ve heard that one explained that he was talking about the destruction of the temple in 70ad but never that he was speaking of his death.
As for the verse in Thessalonians, at first glance you could say Paul was speaking of a time way in the future but it’s interesting that he seems to include himself with the “we” when referring to the living and not the dead that would be taken first…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 6:31 AM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
How do you get from the passage that Jesus is referring to his death? He’s clearly using language that suggests he’s talking about the second coming as dying wouldn’t be seeing him in all his glory???
I’ve heard that one explained that he was talking about the destruction of the temple in 70ad but never that he was speaking of his death.
As for the verse in Thessalonians, at first glance you could say Paul was speaking of a time way in the future but it’s interesting that he seems to include himself with the “we” when referring to the living and not the dead that would be taken first…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 6:49 AM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
Verse 27...."the Son of Man coming in his Father's glory"....clearly this is not referring to his death as Jesus was recorded asking why he was forsaken....
"reward each person according to what they have done"....clearly alluding to the second coming and the judgment seat of Christ. No way you can make an argument that this was referring to Jesus going to the cross and dying.
Verse 28....he says some here will not taste death...why would this be surprising given the fact that he would go to the cross within a few days?
Then he says "Son of Man coming in his Kingdom"....Jesus never "came" from anywhere when he died and he didn't come back in 70 AD....so neither of these explanations would work here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 6:07 PM
|
|
There's a lot to unpack here so sorry about being verbose, but I'll post this part just so we are on the same page. It's from Biblegateway.com. They have more than 60 versions of the Bible translated, but I like the NIV because it's an easy read and uses a bigger pool of translators and scholarship than some of the much earlier editions like KJV and others. My comments are in parenthesis.
Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
(I do find this interesting because it seems to indicate the Jesus knows his future, but not his followers...who are ALREADY calling him Lord. So they presumably see him as divine in some fashion already and possibly not able to be killed, or maybe not targeted to be killed, I don't know which. There will be a centuries long fight coming up about the nature of his divinity that is incredible and will rip the church in all sorts of directions, but for now this shows his early followers can't believe his death is in the cards in any way.)
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
(I don't see this as the disciples literally grabbing a bunch of crosses, but Jesus basically saying "Walk the walk. If you want to call yourself a Christian, go all-in. And the fact that he says "crosses" indicates he knew the severity of what he, and they, were facing. Crucifixion was about as severe of a sentence as one could receive. So he knew he was playing with fire.)
25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
(Up until this point the entire chapter has been about Jesus's imminent death, and this passage is the switch over to what will happen after Jesus dies.
It's a bit tricky because of the term "Son of Man." You can't rely on the Old Testament for insight because there it is used in a different way. Ezekial is even called the Son of Man once. And it apparently confused some of Jesus's contemporaries as well. In John 12, a crowd says to Jesus:
34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”
So they didn't recognize the term Son of Man either. Apparently only Jesus himself knew what he meant. But you'll notice that THEY don't expect Jesus to die either, just like Peter didn't expect him to die. In the Jewish tradition, the true Messiah didn't die. So for Jesus to tell them he was the Messiah and that he was going to die was a total disjunct for them.
Here's my take on it. Jesus was speaking in a transformational sense. If you remember the movie The Matrix, when Neo goes to see the Oracle to get a chocolate cookie and find out if he is "The One", she says "Sorry, Kid, you're not The One. And at that point, he wasn't. But when he later dies in the chair and is "resurrected" by Trinity's kiss, he BECOMES The One at that point. He's the same guy, just in two different forms, basically transforming from human to bullet-deflecting divine.)
So for lack of a better term, I'll call Son of Man Jesus's "divine essence", since he used the word "soul" in verse 26 to mean regular folk's essence. With that interpretation,
"27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done."
means, my physical body will die, and my divine essence will rise to the heavens, and some day (verse 27) return in my Father's glory with his angels to give rewards, date "to be determined."
and
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
means "some of you will see my transformation, unless the Romans and Jews kill you before me." He didn't say "coming TO earth" or "coming FROM the Kingdom of heaven", he said coming in (I read as "into") his kingdom. And in fact, if you look at the very next chapter, 17, it's all about that transformation.
Sorry for all the prior verbiage, but as to your specific points...
>Verse 27...."the Son of Man coming in his Father's glory"....clearly this is not referring to his death as Jesus was recorded asking why he was forsaken....
I agree, but this line is AFTER the discussion of his death, and I don't see any time dependence there. Your point about forsaken is well taken though, and I think three of the Gospels have Jesus's last words as being something different, but then, they are admittedly 4 versions of his life and death told from 4 viewpoints. And not everyone sees or hears the same thing.
>"reward each person according to what they have done"....clearly alluding to the second coming and the judgment seat of Christ. No way you can make an argument that this was referring to Jesus going to the cross and dying.
Again, I agree with that. That clearly alludes to the Second Coming in my mind, but by the same argument as verse 27, Jesus talks about his death first, and then about what will follow second. The chapter is about TWO events, not just one. My human(ish) form will die, just like everyone else, and my fully divine form will later return.
>Verse 28....he says some here will not taste death...why would this be surprising given the fact that he would go to the cross within a few days?
Verse 28 does seem to have an unusual direness to it. But then again, he had just told his followers to walk the walk, so in his mind I'm speculating that he thought they were in as imminent a danger as he was, from Jews as well as Romans.
Then he says "Son of Man coming in his Kingdom"....Jesus never "came" from anywhere when he died and he didn't come back in 70 AD....so neither of these explanations would work here.
>As I said earlier, I read that not as coming to earth, but more like transforming, or coming into his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 7:04 PM
|
|
"(I do find this interesting because it seems to indicate the Jesus knows his future, but not his followers...who are ALREADY calling him Lord. So they presumably see him as divine in some fashion already and possibly not able to be killed, or maybe not targeted to be killed, I don't know which. There will be a centuries long fight coming up about the nature of his divinity that is incredible and will rip the church in all sorts of directions, but for now this shows his early followers can't believe his death is in the cards in any way.)"
That's a major assumption based on Peter simply saying he doesn't believe he's gonna die.
If your friend came to you and said he would be killed in a few days you'd say no way....that doesn't mean you think he's divine and can't die...
But even if Peter thought this about Jesus that wouldn't be in any way uncommon in the first century AD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 9:24 PM
|
|
Yeah I'll concede that's a jump, as each person would have had their own flavor of beliefs. But I made the jump based the similar statement of the crowd in John 12 “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever", and the fact that both those verses even made it into the Bible at all.
The Jewish concept of a Messiah was very different than the Christian view. The Christian version is all about saving your soul, the Jewish version is all about saving the nation of Israel, militarily preferably. That's why Cyrus of Persia was considered a messiah, because he released the Babylon exiles back to Israel. Similarly, Simon Bar Kokhba was considered a messiah when he led a semi-successful revolt against the Romans in 132AD. Then he died in combat, and that of course disqualified him instantly.
So when a fisherman strolls into Jerusalem, gets crucified, and then in the wake of his death, Jerusalem gets sacked in 70 AD, it's no wonder the Jews looked at his memory and his followers like they were out of their gourds. Not only did he not save the nation, in their minds he probably contributed to their defeat somehow by his teachings. Apples and Oranges views on what was needed to be "saved."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 6:49 AM
|
|
The disciples though were devastated when Jesus died and didn't seem to expect to see him alive again. If I had seen a man raise the dead, feed thousands with a few loaves, cast out demons, and calm a raging sea I think I would have been waiting on pins and needles for him to come back.
Also, I've studied into the claims by the church that all of the disciples except John were eventually martyred and there's little to no evidence that this is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 6:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
And from Thessalonians....
"that we which are alive and remain unto the coming"
Even if Paul is not necessarily including himself in the we that would remain he is clearly suggesting that some of those would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 6:32 PM
|
|
I don't really see this one as problematic in any way either, if you consider "We" in the general, not specific sense. In that way he is talking about all present, past, and future "living" Christians.
He's making a distinction between the living and the dead, and since he's living while giving the speech, he puts himself in that group. But "We" the living could apply to any living group in any time.
Sort of like:
"We Americans are independence-minded". That applies to 1776, 2020, and every year thereafter. If you were, are, or will ever be an American, that is an anticipated trait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 7:01 PM
|
|
Ok....but that's not the same as George Washington saying "we Americans who are STILL alive after the war will make a new nation" or something like that....because he knew there would be some that were in fact still alive.
That is more like what it sounds Paul was trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 7:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
He says "we which ARE ALIVE and remain"...
That would he seem to indicate he believed that it would be very soon.
Doesn't mean the whole thing is a sham just because this one man thought that, but he was supposedly being led by the holy spirit and it seems odd that this would be the word of god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 15, 2022, 9:33 PM
|
|
Yeah I'll agree with that. One thing about ALL religions is they are man's (plural) attempt to explain that which is essentially unexplainable. Which is why they all come down to faith, ultimately.
Speaking of Paul, there's a strong argument (to me at least) that what people consider Christianity is actually Paulism. Christ had the original message, but Paul spread the message, and as such had control over what the early churches got as feedback through his letters.
And if you read the words of Jesus and the words of Paul closely, they're not quite the same. Not in a contradictory way always, but in what they choose to address. It's a little controversial, but I can certainly see where the idea comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 6:53 AM
|
|
There seems to be a certain arrogance among christianity though....as if they have the keys to eternal life and everybody who can't see the light they see has something wrong and just wasn't chosen by god like they were. Maybe the followers of other religions are like this too, but I don't live amongst them on a daily basis.
There is no doubt the church today follows the words of Paul more closely than Jesus, and there does seem to be some tension between the teachings of the two. Paul seems to have taken Jesus' message and added a pharisaical spin to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We Christians have nothing to be proud of.
Aug 16, 2022, 7:41 AM
|
|
God gave me everything which I hold dear and cherish. He gave me life and has preserved that life for 70 years now. He saved me that I don't have to pay for my sin and can live near to Him forever. He gave me health, not perfect but more than I deserve.
He gave me a woman who was so wrong for me she was perfect, exactly who I needed to keep me fresh and alive. He gave me many children and grandchildren and has allowed me to enjoy being with them and living with plenty to love.
If everything a man has is given to him what does he have to be proud of? The Bible plainly says that He chose us, we did not choose Him. I resisted God's love and attention for a long time before I surrendered to Him and realized He love me so much that He took on flesh and died in my stead.
He opens me to His word as He opens His word to me. I read the Bible daily for peace, joy and fellowship with God. I didn't cultivate this desire, it came from Him. It's unnatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 12:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
Yeah I wouldn’t put arrogance entirely on the backs of Christians. I think that’s more of an individual human thing. I’m sure one could find plenty of examples of similar behavior in other faiths. There’s the stereotypical Jewish parent who only thinks a good Jewish boy is good enough for their Jewish daughter, the Muslim convert or die zealots, and I’m sure Eastern religion equivalents as well.
Religion may be an interface with the divine, but it is practiced by all too human adherents with all their foibles.
Plus there’s the social aspect. Once religion becomes a public and not a personal thing, comparisons, judgements, jealousies, and all the uglier sides of folks start popping up.
It’s amazingly hard for some people to acknowledge that they only know what THEY know, and have no idea what others have experienced. And by the same token, that limited knowledge means that there may be multiple, not just one way, for anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 1:13 PM
|
|
I think the belief that I’m going to heaven and everybody who doesn’t share my beliefs are going to hell is an arrogant position even if that person pretends to be “praying for you” for the right reason.
That’s a belief that all Christians, regardless of denomination, share.
Most people in my life are Christians, and none of them are arrogant as individuals. But their religious beliefs are extremely arrogant and the funny thing about it to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong, nowhere in the Bible does it say that people who don’t “get saved” as they put it, go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 3:47 PM
|
|
Great, great stuff. Off topic for a sec, though it ties back to your comments. I see religion as a psychological, social, and even an investigative entity (akin to science), and it just fascinates the h377 out of me as to what people today, and historically, believe what they believe. Not in a judgmental or hierarchal way at all, just in terms of the range of thought in so many areas, in a comparative sense.
That's the thing about beliefs. I'm not sure people even have an option...you simply believe (whatever it is) or you do not. You can't fool yourself, and you can't control it any more than your endocrine system or your kidneys. And there is a developmental history to those beliefs - they didn't just spring out of nothingness. I've been trying to show that in my Religious Pron posts, and that as long as there has been man, he has tried to explain, in the best way he can, the natural, and perhaps supernatural, world around him. Trying to understand his experiences, of whatever kind. Ok, going back on topic now.
>I think the belief that I’m going to heaven and everybody who doesn’t share my beliefs are going to hell is an arrogant position even if that person pretends to be “praying for you” for the right reason.
Yes, I certainly agree that is a black-and-white, all-or-nothing framework. And when you set the table that way, you by default create an Us vs. Them mentality, which of course leads right into tribalism and the arrogance that follows suite. But it wasn't always that way, which is why I gave my preface. It's an almost hyper-tribalism mind-set that evolved in a very specific place and a very specific time, in Cannan sometime around 1000ish BCE, and has carried right on down to us today.
In my historical posts, we've covered more than 2000 years of human belief so far and STILL haven't gotten to that inflection point. In the ancient world, gods were a dime-a-dozen. Some weak, some strong, who lorded over everything from weather to war to fertility to whatever. Then came the idea of regional hierarchies of gods, and then one supreme god, above even the regional pantheons. But the idea that there was only one God, and all the others were not only subservient, but fake, was a monumental change.
And you can see that history in the Bible. The God of the Jews even acknowledges other gods, early on.
“On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD." Exodus 12:12
and they had earlier pixxing matches
"So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts. Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. Exodus 7:10-12
And when the Hebrews get to Canaan they had to take on the priests of those local gods in little challenges, too. So my point is that even the Bible acknowledges that development from many, to one, God.
Eastern religions aren't quite so Us vs. Them. They're more about personal enlightenment, or sometimes just acceptance, of existence. And it's more of a personal growth journey. Sort of a tool kit for understanding the universe. So the goal is the same in East or West, understanding the unknowable, but yes, the table is set differently.
Even the concepts of Heaven and Hell are different and developmental. In ancient Egypt, hell was simply obliteration. At your death you were judged pass-fail, and either you made it to the afterlife or you were eradicated from existence.
In Mesopotamia hell was just the next step, and there was no heaven. You just died, and the next phase of your existence was the drudgery of underground "life". There wasn't even a judgement. No chance to improve your lot.
>That’s a belief that all Christians, regardless of denomination, share.
I think I'd still put that on the individual, though. I've known some Christians whose take is "this is how God came to me, how he approached others I do not know." It might be a newer rather than older flavor of Christianity, but they are out there.
>correct me if I’m wrong, nowhere in the Bible does it say that people who don’t “get saved” as they put it, go to hell.
That's a great thought and I've never looked into it. The implications are certainly all over the place, and the doctrine is absolutely, but as for a verbatim verse I can't find one. A quick word search for hell in the NIV only turned up 15 instances, all in the NT, which really shocked me. Switching to KJV brought up another 30 or so in the OT, but all of them are either describing it or warning against it. I couldn't find one that tied it to being saved.
That seems odd until you realize that the entire concept of Original Sin, and thus the need to be saved from it, wasn't even around until the 300 ADs by Augustine. You can see its development in the 100s and 200s, but it is a uniquely Christian idea with no roots in Judaism or any earlier religions that I know of, despite Judaism and Christianity being so closely related. The Jews did write about sin, but not in the sense of a person being saddled with it from birth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Right off the cuff, Psa 51.***
Aug 16, 2022, 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 4:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
Jesus told Nicodemus that 'Ye must be born again.' Simplified that means to believe that Jesus is the Chirst. That simplified means you must be saved.
That has never changed from Adam to now and it will never change. How can one believe God without believing what He said? 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him?'
So yes, I suppose to be one of those type people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 5:35 PM
|
|
But he never said those who didn’t believe would go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That's interesting.
Aug 16, 2022, 7:44 PM
|
|
What's the alternative if Heaven is off the table? I believe the main feature of hell is not that it's a burning fire for eternity though that seems to be the focus of most people. I believe the main torture of hell is being a place of solitude. One would be absolutely alone.
Now that might sound like it's not so bad but what lost people don't understand is the God is everywhere now. David the psalmist said it best in Psalms 139:
'5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.'
The lost don't recognize the presence of God but He is there, here and everywhere we might venture. He will not be in hell. That terrorizes me and prevents me from imagining hell. I believe the Bible refers to a lost soul as a worm. I think perhaps that is the burning of the worm where the worm never dies.
To me, hell is simply a place where God is not. It's terrifying and thus described as eternal fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: That's interesting.
Aug 17, 2022, 6:45 AM
|
|
I've read that pretty much every time Jesus referred to "hell", he was actually referring to a physical place outside Jerusalem where trash was taken and burned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That's interesting.
Aug 17, 2022, 1:09 PM
|
|
Possibly. What you are thinking about, I believe, is the Valley of Gehenna, right outside Jerusalem. It was the city trash/burn pile on and off through centuries, and even had a more nefarious purpose on occasion. It was called out in Jeremiah 7:31 as location of child sacrifice to the Canaanite god Moloch.
"31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind."
Topheth is a generic term for something to be reviled, or spat upon.
But the Jewish definition of hell is loosey-goosey in general. They don't really have same reward-or-punishment/carrot-or-stick/heaven-or-hell framework Christianity later developed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That's interesting.
Aug 17, 2022, 1:39 PM
|
|
Gehenna being a place long associated with bad things and fire, you might see how an easy jump could be made between the older conceptions of the afterlife as a dark, desolate place to a newer, flaming inferno called Hell
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Hell...
Aug 17, 2022, 8:28 PM
|
|
is the convenient term for the lake of fire. Who wants to say four syllables when one will do it?
Revelation 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Hell was, from what I'd guess the staging ground for those who failed to accept Jesus.
14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Now Jesus told many parables but as far as I remember this was the only story He told in which He used proper names. The story of the rich man, Lazarus and Abraham was not a parable.
He spoke of hell and gave descriptions of both the rich man and Lazarus.
The verse in bold is for you, The Big Dog. Since the only John who had preached at the time was John the Baptist who introduced Jesus as the Messiah you must understand that when Jesus said 'This generation will not pass away until it sees the Kingdom.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Hell...
Aug 18, 2022, 6:12 AM
|
|
First of all Revelation was a later letter written decades after Jesus died, supposedly by a dude who was imprisoned on an island in a cave somewhere. What reason do I have to take this book as "god breathed"? This is off topic and I plan on starting a thread asking this question but why should I trust this book as the word of god or any other book in the bible?
Second, I said that when Jesus spoke of hell he was using a word that referred to an actual physical place in Jerusalem at the time. I do believe there was one time he actually spoke of the eternal hell and this was it, when he was talking about the rich man and Lazarus. But what did the rich man do to deserve hell exactly? I don't see where he says that, he just seems to distinguish between the fact that he was rich and Lazarus was poor which seemed to be Jesus' biggest beef with people.
Third, that still doesn't clear up his claim that he would come in glory and REWARD according to what you had done within his followers lifetime. He clearly uses language to suggest he's talking about the second coming in that passage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If you don't believe the Bible then why use one...
Aug 18, 2022, 8:22 AM
|
|
book or passage to contradict another?
You think of Jesus as a man, and rightly so for though He was a man He was also God who could see the heart of man and read it like watching a movie. Nothing of the heart was, or is, hidden from Him.
Just as He saw the hearts of the Pharisees, the rich young ruler who he told to go sell all he had and give to the poor he also saw the rich man's heart and knew that he had no compassion on Lazarus. What two commandments did Jesus give to His disciples? Name them and reconcile your question to the question 'What did the rich man do to deserve hell?'
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."
Maybe you struggle with the King's English. The law and prophets were until John...meaning Israel was under the Mosaic Covenant until John, the Baptist came and preached the Kingdom of God is come. Jesus walked on earth at the time. Remember, they were born within months apart. Mary and Elisabeth, their mothers were cousins?
You are choosing to take the traditional Jewish belief that Christ would only do one lap on earth. Frankly, it makes more sense from our perspective that He assumed an earthly throne after His resurrection rather than waiting for thousands of years to take His second lap around the field.
As I said, He chose us, we didn't choose Him. If, just if, He chose me how would that work if He assumed His earthly throne the day of His resurrection? He would not have been faithful to me and given me the chance to have faith in Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Hell...
Aug 18, 2022, 9:36 AM
[ in reply to Re: Hell... ] |
|
>First of all Revelation was a later letter written decades after Jesus died
Yes, you're thinking of John of Patmos, (an island right off the coast of Turkey), as opposed to John the Evangelist or John the Apostle. And yes, it was written around 100AD, roughly 70 years after Jesus died. But all of the Gospels, and NT for that matter, were written 20-70 after he died.
I agree it is odd that in the immediate wake of his crucifixion no one seemed to think it was important enough to write anything down about it. But that could just mean that since it was fresh in everyone's memory, why do so? Or it could mean that they did, and we haven't found it yet, or that they did, but it didn't make the "cut" to get into the Bible. Lots of possible answers.
>What reason do I have to take this book as "god breathed"?
Only through your own faith, so far as I know. I believe that those who wrote these books 100% believed what they were writing, to their own death on many occasions. Now, whether you believe what they believed is up to your own inner "faith threshold." And like I said earlier, I don't think any of us have any control over that - you believe what you are confronted with, or you do not. You can't fool yourself, and why would you even try?
If you're looking to religion for insight into existence, and Christianity isn't your cup of tea, there are a ton of other choices. The mysteries are undeniably there. How does a bird know to build a nest? Did he go to nest school? Or a spider build a web? Christianity might say "God taught them" - but if that isn't a satisfactory answer for you, why keep trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? Just find a square hole.
>why should I trust this book as the word of god or any other book in the bible?
Others will disagree, but if you don't trust it, don't. The Bible is a very, very specific collection of writing tailored and edited over time to present a very specific and controlled message. I'm not saying the message is right or wrong, I'm just saying that is the history of the development of the Bible. It's a history of a group of people who were trying to find their own answers. Maybe they hit the nail on the head and struck the jackpot for everybody, and their answers work for all eternity. Or maybe not.
But others, all over the world, were doing the same thing and trying to find the same answers in their way. In India, in China, in the Americas. Everywhere.
A great example is the Gnostics, who I will get to once I get to the development of the Bible specifically. The reason I like the Gnostics is that they have serious street cred. They were contemporaries of Jesus, and while they weren't necessarily in his inner circle, they were the guys in the crowds he was preaching to. Like the Apostles, they were alive when Jesus walked around Galilee, and they were without a doubt Christians.
So they have some authority when they say "Well, you may have heard Jesus say this, but I heard him say that." Sort of a he said-she said thing. They were more mystical, and they tried to focus more on what Jesus "meant", beyond just what he was telling people to do. The pocket-protector egghead types. Were they right? I have no idea, but they are one interesting read for sure, and a case study in how two groups of people can hear the exact same words and interpret them differently.
Now, any time humans are involved in anything, it's going to devolve into human politics, and so the Gnostics ended up being the first group to be declared heretical by the fledgling church of the first couple centuries AD. The message must be streamlined.
But my bigger point is, if you don't trust something don't trust it. No one on this planet is going to say they know everything. And if you admit to yourself that you don't know everything, then how can you say that your way is the only way? There are so, so many options out there. Find one that satisfies you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Hell...
Aug 18, 2022, 10:09 AM
|
|
Most Christians like to credit the same John, the youngest and supposedly the disciple Jesus loved the most, with the gospel of John, the three letters, and the book of Revelation….probably just because that would give more credibility to those books, specifically the most outlandish one, Revelation which ClemsonTiger1988® chose to pull from when talking about hell as opposed to the words of Jesus who barely mentioned it, and when he did it wasn’t in the way Christians like to portray it.
Jesus never said believe in me or go to hell, and even stranger the only time he spoke of those who believe in him inheriting eternal life, it was to a single Jew who didn’t even believe in heaven….
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Hell...
Aug 18, 2022, 11:10 AM
|
|
I didn't get back to your question of Lazarus and the Rich Man. It's a great story but to get the most out of it you need to know a little Roman history. There are a lot of clues in it that help drop it in a specific time and place, and John is generally believed to have been composed, or at least assembled around 70 AD.
There are two huge tip offs in the story about what is really going on here. The first is purple, which was only worn by royalty or priests. The second is 5 sons, and there was a famous family of priests that were appointed by Rome and served during Jesus's time. Caiaphas is the famous one, but he was only an in-law to the Ananus family, which had a lock on the high priest position for about 50 years.
So this whole story comes off to me as an underhanded swipe at the priesthood. Since Jesus the man only lived through a portion of their reign, there's no way he could have known how many in the family would actually end up serving. And anyone he preached to wouldn't have gotten the inside jab if the numbers didn't match up, so it feels like this story was actually composed after 60 AD., when the last, and 5th, of the Ananus clan moved on. And then it was put in Book of John in 70ish AD.
It's also VERY significant that both Abraham and Moses are mentioned, and not just one. That's a more complicated idea that goes back to the Babylonian exile over who had the true land rights in Judea, the Abraham line or the Moses line. The fact that both were included feels like a reconciliation attempt to bring different national factions together, or to appeal to both, or to try and get credibility from both. John was clearly Christian, but possible Jewish converts were all around.
The hell version presented here is clearly a Christian and not a Jewish one. Had Jesus written or spoken the story himself, as a Jew, he would have presumably used the Jewish version of hell. This is a lot of speculation, but a fun look at a story with a lot under the surface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Hell...
Aug 18, 2022, 11:24 AM
|
|
And of course, this is about as blatant a refernce to Jesus as you can make, without using his name. "...they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Hell...
Aug 18, 2022, 6:26 AM
[ in reply to Hell... ] |
|
And he was already preaching the kingdom at that time. In the passage I’m referring to he was speaking of a future event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 5:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
The sheep and the goats passage indicates that it’s about how you treat the poor. ?♂️
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Which of the Pharisaical teachings did Paul use
Aug 16, 2022, 11:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
to add the spin you speak of?
While I agree there are some Christians who carry a certain arrogance about their faith, there are also others who carry the same arrogance through their rebuttal. In the end, however, truth will prevail. Make no mistake, there is no blending of "truth" that can be realized between the two sides. One is a lie. One is not.
Jesus said no one can come to the Father but through Him. Jesus also said He did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Jesus never said when He would return but, He did say no one knows that hour except the Father...not even the Son. Then, when you begin to study the Day of the Lord, you begin to formulate your understanding of the [overall] teachings of, and about, Christ - about His return specifically - through the different interpretive models. One must study these models because anything to do with the return of Christ is dealing with the whole of that particular study. That makes me wonder if you are, at heart, a Preterist? That is, one who believes all of the return and tribulation biblical talk deals only with 1st century events exclusively.
At any rate, in the same manner as a person can understand that Abraham did inherit the Promise Land through his descendants, one can easily understand that Paul was not being inclusive of first century Christians as the ones who would experience the return of Christ exclusively in the verses you are abusing. Further, scripture is quite clear that is not the case.
Then there is John, who saw the unveiling of the Glory of Christ when he was caught up in the Spirit and given the words of Revelation. John, who was one of them. Perhaps that is too speculative on my part to you. Even so, as John would write in Revelation, Chapter 1, "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, amen."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Which of the Pharisaical teachings did Paul use
Aug 17, 2022, 7:17 AM
|
|
First of all let me clarify....when I said Christians were arrogant I meant that their overall worldview- that they get to go live in eternal happiness while everybody else that doesn't believe what they believe gets to burn in hell is an arrogant position. They'll "pray for you" as if you have something wrong with you just because you don't come to the conclusion they've come to. They'll vote to keep two men down the road from getting married just because their religion says it's wrong...to me that's arrogant and not very respectful of other people's beliefs.
Now to the tension between Jesus and Paul. There's been a lot written about this and one of the main things that is brought up is that Jesus taught of repentance and the coming kingdom, where as Paul taught grace by faith alone. These are a couple I've noticed myself...
Maybe it's not necessarily Paul's fault but Christians today seem to be more like first century Pharisees than first century Christians. They'll judge you for drinking alcohol even though the bible clearly indicates Jesus drank wine. The passage in Luke 7 where the pharisees come and call Jesus a glutton and a drunk sounds just like a modern day tee totaler coming down on someone for having a beer. There are plenty of Christians I know that won't sit at the dinner table with someone if they don't like their choice of beverage. And they tend to use the words of Paul...that they "don't want their brother to slip", to defend their holier than thou position. My question has always been the same....was Jesus causing people to slip when he turned water into wine at a wedding? If you read the passage it indicates that these people had already been drinking and he not only gave them more wine but they were shocked that he saved the good stuff for last. So according to Paul, Jesus was being sinful.
Another...Jesus said where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I'll be there. He also told the woman at the well, who assumed she couldn't worship because she couldn't go to the synagogue, that true worship was done in spirit and in truth. Paul comes along and sets up what would become the modern day church and says do not forsake the assembling of yourselves.
These might seem small and insignificant, but to me Jesus seemed to be more concerned with how you treated people, where as Paul focused on how a Christian should carry themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: Which of the Pharisaical teachings did Paul use
Aug 17, 2022, 8:06 AM
|
|
First, thank you for sharing those teaching points that Paul was specifically twisting, and not just your opinion on other teaching points you disagree with or find offensive.
Second, No one here is "beating you up" for anything you have said, or your belief, or how you express it. So, why are you in here voicing such complaints against others - Christians specifically? Why are you not asking those whom you know, which directly offended or judged you, these questions?
Christ came to reconcile, but the enemy always seeks to divide. I don't see any evidence that you are seeking to reconcile at all. That would begin by talking to the one who offends you...unless it really is just that all Christians offend you and you don't really care to reconcile differences one little bit. Are you just here to "stir the pot" while you mumble your magic words, "Double double toil and trouble. Fire burn and cauldron bubble"?
As for the Christian worldview, Christ came to save all who would believe and answer His call to repentance. That is a world wide concern. John 3:17 explains that quite clearly.
So, you go live as you see best. But if you really seek clarity and understanding, get out of the shadows and face the enemy eye to eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Which of the Pharisaical teachings did Paul use
Aug 17, 2022, 9:05 AM
|
|
Seems to be more of a cultural thing than one individual here and there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
If Christianity offends you, and you believe it is cultural
Aug 17, 2022, 10:12 AM
|
|
You should probably stay at home... inside... before you meet a true "died in the wool" Muslim.
So as not to offend you I will not state that "I am praying for you."
Wish you the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: If Christianity offends you, and you believe it is cultural
Aug 17, 2022, 10:54 AM
|
|
A Christian’s worldview is not much different than a Muslims, in fact it’s pretty much the same. Those that don’t believe what I believe are condemned to eternal damnation and they deserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I explainified this once but for the record I'll do it again
Aug 17, 2022, 8:54 PM
[ in reply to Re: Which of the Pharisaical teachings did Paul use ] |
|
Jesus taught that people should obey the law because the law was in full force until Christ died on the cross.
Jesus lived in a dispensation which extended from Moses climb down the mountain with tablet of stone on which were inscribed the ten commandments, until He died on the cross. At that moment the dispensation changed. Remember how the temple veil was torn from top to bottom as if a man took a rag in his hands and ripped it in half? Yeah, the law was fulfilled and what was a previous holy place behind that veil was now accessible to all man.
So, two dispensation, two preachers who had two messages. The one preaching the law and the other preaching grace. TWO DISPENSATIONS!
The Big Dog
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: I explainified this once but for the record I'll do it again
Aug 17, 2022, 9:39 PM
|
|
But, let's not forget that the LAW was given to the Jews, not the Gentile nations. Everyone, remember, is already condemned through the sin of Adam. Including the Jewish people. And the LAW did not save any of the Jews. As Paul teaches us, the Law was a tutor that pointed to Christ Jesus.
Anyway, the 10 commandments are not a stairway to heaven. They are, however, a thermometer that teaches one how sick they really are in relation to God. And forgiveness of sin, that was found through ritual sacrifice... not living a successful life by not breaking the Law. Everyone breaks the Law. Everyone.
Now Grace, oh how great is the Grace of God! When Jesus was crucified Outside the walls of Jerusalem... Rejected and scorned by His own, grace was given to all men who would accept the Savior. A better covenant was sealed in Grace to the believer. And I stand on this truth, it is the work of Christ Jesus alone that has saved me. Not by any work of my own. Only Jesus.
On a side note, Caiaphas became disqualified as High Priest, when in the presence of Jesus during the mockery of a trial, tore his cloak in disgust and anger. This truth is found in the book of Leviticus. Then Jesus.... praise God!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I explainified this once but for the record I'll do it again
Aug 18, 2022, 10:14 AM
|
|
The punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime.
For some reason we don’t allow rulers here on earth in reality to rule that way….to punish everyone for the sins of one man….but yet we are all condemned to hell because he chose to sin? And you defend that?
I think I could have kept my hand off that piece of forbidden fruit. If it was a nice set of ##### probably not, but that just begs the question, why would a loving god put something in front of me he knew I wanted, and then punish me for taking it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: I explainified this once but for the record I'll do it again
Aug 18, 2022, 12:08 PM
|
|
You should ask Him as no one on earth can answer you questions satisfactorily.
Oh, I don't defend God... He defends me.
Oh, oh, ...nevermind. You wouldn't listen anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I explainified this once but for the record I'll do it again
Aug 18, 2022, 12:38 PM
|
|
I’m just using the brain he supposedly gave me.
If someone murders they get death or life in prison…
If someone steals a car they might get 10 years…
If someone breaks the speed limit they get a fine…
But supposedly there is a supreme being that is going to throw me in hell for simply not believing one of the thousands of religions out there.
That is absurd.
You can get mad at me all you want to but this a legitimate observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Re: I explainified this once but for the record I'll do it again
Aug 18, 2022, 2:40 PM
|
|
Me, mad? lol... I am amused, fer shur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
They had the same message.
Aug 18, 2022, 7:30 PM
|
|
You're not understanding them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Late to the discussion on this. Fun times.
Aug 17, 2022, 1:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: Twice in the New Testament ] |
|
Thank you for raising the questions, and I enjoy reading the discussion. Will just throw in a point that I think often gets overlooked in discussions like this:
The Christian proposal is historical, not religious or philosophical. The resurrection either occurred or it did not, and the answer to that answers most of these other questions. As Paul admitted: "If the resurrection did not occur, we most among men are to be pitied."
The same could almost be said about Mohammed or Joseph Smith: they were visited alone by angels who gave them writings that were then lost, or not. But that is the difference. They are claiming that their writings are divine, with no external evidence.
The Christian claim is instead analogous to being abducted by aliens, taken to Zarcon, and then returning with a celestial map and weird writings. Whether the map and writings are legit is almost immaterial: just prove that the abduction occurred. In some ways, the claims seem somewhat similar. If this is true - Jesus's identity being defined by the resurrection - it seems to me that two foundational ideas follow:
1. The resurrection is a testable proposal. Therefore, the definition of faith is not "believing something in the absence of facts", or some similar wording. Two people can hold different opinions about what the evidence shows, but a Christian's faith is the result of his belief that the resurrection happened. Faith is the decisions that follow. It is a rational matter, if often counter culture and counter intuitive. Philosophical/religious thoughts can follow, but they only follow. Jesus as messiah can be neither manufactured nor rejected philosophically.
2. The New Testament has to be interpreted in that light, not the other way around. If the resurrection is a hoax, maybe Jesus didn't say anything at all. If he did, we should interpret his words as those of a deluded person. Paul is to be pitied. But if it did occur, the Christian is not being exclusive or arrogant by believing it did. It is not arrogant, for instance, for a physician to say that for a given illness only a certain antibacterial will work. He is not claiming personal superiority. The claim can certainly be discussed, but the position is not arrogant. There are arrogant doctors and Christians, and that flaw inhibits their effectiveness, but the claims are not arrogant.
Edit: None of this is meant to lightly pass over (pardon the pun) the question of evidence for the resurrection. That is a huge subject, but it is different from this one. I'm just saying that the Christian proposal can be, and should be, examined by evidential means.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Late to the discussion on this. Fun times.
Aug 18, 2022, 6:03 AM
|
|
The problem is there is no way to prove the resurrection actually happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I believe it has been proved, but it depends on the
Aug 18, 2022, 10:24 AM
|
|
definition of 'proved' one uses. No historical event can be proven to have occurred by the same definition of "proven" one uses to prove that, say, E=MC2.
That Caesar invaded Gaul cannot be proven by scientific means. However, the evidence for it is of course overwhelming. Court cases clear the burden of proof without 'scientific proof' all the time. There is a similar process for assessing ancient documents to determine whether the documents tell a story, a true account, or erroneous account. That process is how we know history from fiction. It can be, and has been, applied to the NT documents. I and many others believe the evidence is overwhelming. Others can choose to not see it that way. Nevertheless, a question like your original one (Jesus said X, so what about Y), is therefore not a 'gotcha' question, and does not call into question the resurrection. That issue can be handled directly, and has been.
You have asked, "What about Y", you have received answers, and no one is satisfied with the other, because what Jesus is reported to have said is independent of what we have concluded about the resurrection. Your question is a very good one, but it is not a good 'gotcha' question. If you want to disprove the resurrection in our minds, you will have to do so more directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I believe it has been proved, but it depends on the
Aug 18, 2022, 11:35 AM
|
|
The only thing that you can really prove in that sense though is that there was a man named Jesus and he started a new religion.
If he was in error and said something that didn’t come to pass though that would call into question his divinity.
To me, modern day Christianity doesn’t even resemble first century Christianity, and it most definitely doesn’t resemble Jesus and his followers. There seemed to be an urgency, like they really believed this Jesus was coming back soon. The modern church is more concerned about political issues and making their lives better here on earth. The early Christians gave up everything and took care of the poor. The modern Christians idea of taking care of the poor is giving a little extra around Christmas time or going on a mission trip for a week.
I think that is the biggest thing the effected my faith personally, was the realization that we don’t really follow Jesus, and quite frankly in todays society that would be impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I agree with almost all you say. Modern Christianity bears
Aug 18, 2022, 3:50 PM
|
|
almost no resemblance to first century Christianity. It's probably worse than you even think. Christianity grew from 100 people to between a third and half the Roman empire by 300 AD, and at that time the worst possible thing happened: They built their first church building. Until then it had been a movement of small communities that could fit in a small house, existing and growing in spite of the worst of oppression. You are intuitive enough to imagine what those communities must have been like.
Today, the practice of meeting in large buildings, listeners sitting in rows facing one direction, a speaker standing behind a podium often wearing symbols of his education and office - and the other details of a modern church - have their beginnings not in Christianity but in pagan Roman culture. Documentation upon request. The point is that I agree with you that the New Testament envisioned something totally unlike what we see today, in both practice and attitude. And Christian alignment with politics is not merely counter productive, but evil, and I don't use that word cavalierly: I think that's what it is.
I would ask you to consider three things related to this:
1. More Christians agree with what we have said here than you might think. While the mainline denominations are declining in attendance, what is growing is a network of small unaffiliated churches - usually less than 50 attendees meeting in borrowed space - that exists precisely because of what we are discussing here. No one knows for sure how many people attend these small churches because no one has yet attempted to count them, but it's a lot. If you knew 5 people like me, each of those 5 could point someone to several such communities. They're everywhere, by no means in secret but intentionally with little to no public footprint. The point is that many Christians themselves agree with you.
2. To judge the claims of Christianity by the actions of anyone, believer or atheist, is a logical error. We would ask a visitor to not judge Clemson by the action of an inebriated fan for that reason. One of Jesus's friends sold him out. Another cursed when asked if he knew Jesus. Priests have preyed on children. And worse. None of that changes who Jesus was. That question has to be assessed on its on.
3. The evidence for Jesus's existence is basically the same as for the resurrection. It is not as if there exists the typical historical evidence for his existence, which then ends with his execution, to be replace by apocryphal stories of a resurrection. That is not how the accounts came to be, or are assessed. The evidence is there. I'm not saying this to try to convince you - that would be another conversation you would have to initiate - I'm just reiterating the previous point that Jesus's identity has not been a matter of unsubstantiated stories.
Anyway, fun conversation. You haven't said much I disagree with, apart from Jesus's identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I agree with almost all you say. Modern Christianity bears
Aug 18, 2022, 7:08 PM
|
|
Your post made me think of this video, Tulsa. This guy was called "The Pope's Latin Teacher" and spent 50 years in the Vatican as a Senior Priest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy1lPOzDvs4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
LOL, too funny. I'd like to meet that guy, though I think
Aug 18, 2022, 7:37 PM
|
|
I know what he might say:
"Look, I know Jesus agreed to an execution in a manner I can't comprehend, to atone for my sin for which I can't pay. From then until now we humans have added stuff I can't defend, to the degree it's actually funny, so I laugh at it."
That doesn't undo the damage it has caused, and it is incalculable. That anyone today is a follower of Jesus is only the work of his Spirit, in spite of, not because of, the church today. He works through the worst of us in spite of ourselves, which is what the Gospel (literally "Good News") is.
Along those lines, you might like this, which is funny because it is true, and true because it is funny, and explains most of what we are discussing here, I think:
https://youtu.be/xk9wgJBoEd8
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: LOL, too funny. I'd like to meet that guy, though I think
Aug 18, 2022, 11:19 PM
|
|
Hilarious. I like that guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: LOL, too funny. I'd like to meet that guy, though I think
Aug 19, 2022, 8:58 AM
|
|
Sola Fide. Now we're into what makes Catholics Catholics and Protestants Protestants
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: LOL, too funny. I'd like to meet that guy, though I think
Aug 19, 2022, 9:55 AM
|
|
And this is another reason I find it all hard to believe.
If there was a divine spirit moving in the heart of these people why are there so many interpretations and opinions?
Why couldn't this spirit get them all on the same page?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Humans! Hello, McFly! Anyone home!?!***
Aug 19, 2022, 2:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
C'mon, man. There are two funny videos here, back to back,
Aug 19, 2022, 9:16 AM
[ in reply to Re: LOL, too funny. I'd like to meet that guy, though I think ] |
|
and your only response is a whatabout? It is not demeaning to one's position to lighten up a smidgen. Your question is a very good one, and should be asked, and I'm going to answer it, but I want to ask: "What will you do with the answer?" Or have you rejected it before you hear it, the next whatabout already chosen?
No one can survive having one sentence lifted from a conversation and having that sentence examined as if the conversation didnt occur. No word in any language is that precise. Definition of any word depends on context, a thing one suspends to create a whatabout. In this case the words are "works" by Alistair Begg in the video, and "deed" by James. Begg clearly says that 'works' are things we do that raise our moral standing. We know this as we hear him. And we know he is saying that such an endeavor is fruitless. Okay, got it, so what about 'deeds' when James says it?
James is responding to the person who says that his intellectual beliefs are morally defining. "I go to church." Even, "I believe Jesus was God on earth." James humorously says, "Yeah, well, Satan knows that better than you do, and look at what that gets him." So then, how can one tell the difference between mere intellectual assent and actual faith? Without explaining what faith is, James keeps it simple:"Deeds." Okay, so what are deeds? Things one does to elevate his moral standing? James says, "You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
James gives an example of a person being obedient to God, then follows that with the line you quoted. He is clearly saying that if a person has faith, one will see it in his obedience to what God says. What Abraham "did" was to do what God told him, which he could do only if he choose to have faith that God was right. Begg is saying the same thing, by saying that it doe not work in the reverse. We all know that one's wife can not be bought off with flowers, but we know that failure to give them reveals to her her who we are. To do the former is a matter of pride: I can show how good I am. The latter is a shedding of pride: "I am yours". We intuitively know this. A hearer of the two speakers, Begg and James, knows this.
That line from James is an often used whatabout. It shows, I think, that the question doesnt come from a desire to understand, but to debate. And that's fine, but that is what it is, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: C'mon, man. There are two funny videos here, back to back,
Aug 19, 2022, 9:52 AM
|
|
I'm light bro, I'm light  . Don't take my straight forward questions as if I'm being too serious.
The million dollar question is why couldn't James clarify all that himself? I lifted the final verse because it was his main point but he went on for a while about works.
Interesting that he didn't say what you are saying he said...."we are justified by faith but works prove that we have faith".
He said we are "justified by works", and "not by faith only".
And you can ask that question about a lot of these passages that are unclear and seem to contradict another...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You can will not be called safe on second...
Aug 19, 2022, 11:20 AM
|
|
base if you miss stepping on the first base! It's that simple. You will not score a touchdown pass received by a quarterback who is across the line of scrimmage. A three shot from beyond the sideline, out of bounds will not be recorded on the scoreboard.
The base runner is out. The pass is not recorded as a pass and the touchdown won't count. The shooter has turned the basketball over to his opponents.
It's that simple. Faith is the foundation on which Jesus works in a man's life. Man does no work, man simply believes and obeys. "Trust and Obey,' remember? They sing it then loudly proclaim their works. That is not what James was doing and not what he said for us to do.
Our only work for God is to believe Him and try to do what's right in His eyes. All else will be burned away when this world ends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You can will not be called safe on second...
Aug 19, 2022, 12:06 PM
|
|
Weird concept though right?
Why does this one guy get all the credit?
Because he was crucified? A ton of people were….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You have a great talent.
Aug 19, 2022, 12:27 PM
|
|
You can ignore the obvious by preferring the trivial. Sirry sbout hte mistipeing miasakeing. Afteral, I'm just a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You have a great talent.
Aug 19, 2022, 1:29 PM
|
|
I don’t think it’s trivial to wonder why one person is worth of all the adoration and praise, and why any person would actually want all that. Just seems like an archaic belief and we’d call that person an egotistical SOB.
So Jesus came and taught for a few years, got arrested and crucified like thousands of other people in the first century….
Why does that make him worthy of worship?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It's dishonest to change the subject when an answer...
Aug 19, 2022, 2:39 PM
|
|
to one of your questions satisfies the question so well. Shane on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I think he's trolling. He was a good one, I'll grant. But
Aug 19, 2022, 2:53 PM
|
|
they eventually get caught because the evasions you just mentioned will illogically bring them back full circle, claiming ignorance of what was previously explained.
If a person is right about something, does he really have to resort to that? Whistling past the graveyard, I think. At best.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
This is TBD's third lap around it.
Aug 19, 2022, 3:55 PM
|
|
I'm about tired of trying to keep up with him. Imo, he knows enough about the Truth to not complain about injustice in the afterlife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: This is TBD's third lap around it.
Aug 19, 2022, 4:11 PM
|
|
The largest Christian denomination in the world says it's not just about faith contrary to what you and CUintulsa® believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Good, troll, go argue with them.***
Aug 19, 2022, 8:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I am beginning to think you are being purposely obtuse.
Aug 19, 2022, 2:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: You have a great talent. ] |
|
This has already been explained to you, and rather than move on you pretend to be ignorant by repeating, "I don't understand!!"
Early in this thread we discussed the fact that the Christian proposal is historical, that the execution and resurrection took place, and the fact that there is great evidence for this. No one has asked to you to believe that, or required that you do so in order to continue the discussion. But that does mean that the issue of "executed just like thousands of others" has already been explained. The resurrection obviously proves he wasn't "just like thousands of others". He was what he had claimed to be, the Messiah. Asked and answered, in this thread.
You do not have to believe that. Your choice. But you can't claim ignorance of what 1988 believes to be true. Why he believes what he does has already been explained, and you do have to accept that it has been. To circle back with "I don't understand!!" sounds like a troll just spitballing random questions to keep the pot stirred. You can do that if you want to, but as soon as we figure that out you will no longer be able to generate any discussion. So, choose the path you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I am beginning to think you are being purposely obtuse.
Aug 19, 2022, 4:05 PM
|
|
It's a legitimate question and observation.
If you're gonna get your panties in a wad because I'm not buying your explanations and pointing out the flaws in your argument then hit the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Yep, you're a troll. And an arrogant one. I said several
Aug 19, 2022, 8:13 PM
|
|
times you dont have to believe anything, yet you grasp onto that lie. You're dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
:) No worries, we'll consider ourselves to be jolly fellows
Aug 19, 2022, 2:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: C'mon, man. There are two funny videos here, back to back, ] |
|
and move ahead accordingly.
But as to James explaining what 'works' means, we just covered that. He spent the entire paragraph talking about acting in faith, complete with an example. If you insist on continuing to separate the word from the paragraph in order to say, "it means the opposite of the paragraph", there is no sufficient explanation for you.
It is 2022. It is impossible to come along 2000 years after the fact and point out something in plain view that hasn't been known and considered. The generally understood concept of salvation by faith rather than goodness has been around since the beginning, with James's letter fully understood. We know about James. The understanding of James is not a workaround, but a plain reading of his intent. No one is going to now say, "Gee, look at this", with any credibility.
The pushback you are getting comes from your original post, the perspective shown by, "They wont teach you this in Sunday School". That sentence says that there is a conspiracy afoot to teach the opposite of what is in plain view, that Christians everywhere have fallen for it because they are too stupid to see it, and that you are here with your new observation and wisdom to explain it. Yet somehow you later said they are the ones who are arrogant.
If in order to be right about a matter one has to be smart while someone else has to be stupid, one is probably wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: :) No worries, we'll consider ourselves to be jolly fellows
Aug 19, 2022, 3:57 PM
|
|
How else would there be so many different versions of Christianity unless Christians did pick and choose and ignore verses they do not like? That absolutely happens and a lot of christians do hide what's in the bible, I've seen it first hand many times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: C'mon, man. There are two funny videos here, back to back,
Aug 19, 2022, 10:11 AM
[ in reply to C'mon, man. There are two funny videos here, back to back, ] |
|
By the way wasn't James one of the apostles at odds with Peter and Paul over new gentile believers not following Jewish customs like circumcision?
I could see him having a differing opinion on faith/works and how someone is justified.
And we know there were many more writings that didn't make it into the canon. If James was in fact the brother of Jesus seems like he would have had a louder voice but maybe he was saying the wrong things...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The question arose from some of the pharisee which...
Aug 19, 2022, 12:35 PM
|
|
believed as to whether or not the gentiles needed to become Jews to be saved. It was Paul and Barnabas who opposed the circumcision as a requirement to be saved. God basically had to beat the other apostles over the head to make them understand grace through faith.
God even had to take Peter up in a vision in which a net was dropped to prove to him that he did not determine who/what was 'clean,' and who/what was 'unclean.' Peter actually testified to this in Acts 15, I think where the arguments were made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You are correct about the modern church not looking..
Aug 18, 2022, 7:39 PM
[ in reply to Re: I believe it has been proved, but it depends on the ] |
|
like the first church. You're also right that Christians have no business dallying in politics.
You're wrong about being a Christian in modern days and perhaps that's a difference to be explored. The first church was persecuted, fed to lions, crucified, beaten, imprisoned and shunned by the Jewish religion which was between the sheets with Rome.
Perhaps if we lived under those conditions we might care more about one another than we do ourselves. I'll tell you something about you. You think you could have resisted eating the fruit but if you saw Eve you might change your mind.
https://babylonbee.com/news/study-finds-100-of-men-would-eat-any-fruit-given-to-them-by-a-naked-woman/
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: You are correct about the modern church not looking..
Aug 18, 2022, 11:13 PM
|
|
Now that's funny right there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
So what does one do with someone who claims...
Aug 19, 2022, 8:11 AM
|
|
he would have been sinless had God created him rather than Adam?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: So what does one do with someone who claims...
Aug 19, 2022, 8:52 AM
|
|
I would have went for the melons, not the apple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You are correct about the modern church not looking..
Aug 19, 2022, 7:28 AM
[ in reply to You are correct about the modern church not looking.. ] |
|
I meant that it would be impossible in today's society for someone to literally lay down everything and follow Jesus. The disciples literally walked away from everything and there's not any evidence that they went back to their old lives after Jesus. According to church history they all went out to spread the good news and were eventually martyred.
Now think about somebody doing this in modern times. You'd be a hobo on the side of the street that nobody paid attention to. I guess you can twist it into a modern context and say laying down your old life of sin and making a life change would be "taking up your cross", but that's still not close to what the disciples did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It was the 12 Apostles who walked away from everything...
Aug 19, 2022, 8:07 AM
|
|
and followed Jesus, not the disciples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2155]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2574
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: It was the 12 Apostles who walked away from everything...
Aug 19, 2022, 9:01 AM
|
|
You'll have to clarify what you mean by apostles vs. disciples.
I think of the 12 disciples as Peter, James and John, Matthew, Judas Iscariot, etc...The original 12 that were with Jesus during his ministry.
I think of the apostles as those that went on after Jesus including some of the 12 and the apostle Paul.
Anyhow, the original 12 disciples of Jesus did lay down their lives as they knew them. They were told to go and spread the news about Jesus and not worry about clothes or food.
Tell me who does that in today's society?
The pastor at the southern baptist church my wife and I used to attend makes $95,000 a year. I'm not throwing off on him, he's just doing what he thinks is right but this is a far, far cry from the kind of life the original followers of Christ lived.
And this is why I find it hard to believe a god that wanted to speak to me would do so from a set of documents that were written in a totally different world than we live in today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: It was the 12 Apostles who walked away from everything...
Aug 19, 2022, 10:32 AM
|
|
Jesus had 12 Apostles, those He called to drop their craft and take up the work of God on earth. It's simple enough to post a link for you to learn. You know of the miracles done by the 12, healing the sick and lame, raising the dead and giving sight to the blind.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/the-fourfold-gospel/by-sections/after-prayer-jesus-selects-twelve-apostles.html
All who are born again are called to be His disciples. Baptist churches have discipleship training. That doesn't include teaching people to heal the sick or cripple, make the blind to see or raising the dead.
Jesus, speaking to a group of people said, as close as I can remember, 'If ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed and ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.'
Reading the Bible is an important stepping stone to becoming His disciple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: You are correct about the modern church not looking..
Aug 19, 2022, 8:24 AM
[ in reply to Re: You are correct about the modern church not looking.. ] |
|
The Amphitheater at Ephesus.
You'd have to have cajones of steel to stroll in here and tell a full house of hostile Romans, Greeks, and Jews they are all wrong. Mad respect for the Apostles. They walked the walk. It's not exactly on the edge of town either. It's quite a walk through the town, in either direction, to get to out to safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23465
Joined: 7/13/12
|
paging Prod
Aug 16, 2022, 5:36 PM
|
|
where are you TheProdigal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
He gives the most simple and concise explanations.
Aug 16, 2022, 7:45 PM
|
|
He always hits the nail on the head too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Pretty simple: Jesus was referring to the apostle John
Aug 29, 2022, 2:21 PM
[ in reply to paging Prod ] |
|
when he said that "some standing here" would see Jesus' coming. John writes all about what he saw in the Revelation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Twice in the New Testament
Aug 16, 2022, 8:27 PM
|
|
Thoroughly enjoying the discussion guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 98
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
