ive seen it,tis interesting!
but the world hasnt 'ticked all of the boxes' sos to speak before, today, all the boxes have been ticked...all the things in 2 tim are happenin now exactly as it said.
all that is left (prophesy wise) is for the governments to turn on religion, and a world wide ban...then the bible says god steps in and brings about armaggeddon...
eeek!
(well eeek if you believe it anyways...)
we believe the same but for different reasons. maybe it's because i'm a stubborn old sod but i still connect it with global warming. the governments turning on religion is the governments FAILURE TO TURN TO religion when the shite hits the fan.
with all the flooding i don't see the un even existing. i think a LEADER will try to sway the masses with false promises.
we believe the same but for different reasons. maybe it's because i'm a stubborn old sod but i still connect it with global warming. the governments turning on religion is the governments FAILURE TO TURN TO religion when the shite hits the fan.
with all the flooding i don't see the un even existing. i think a LEADER will try to sway the masses with false promises.
well im only 22 so i know ive alot to learn!
i believe global warming is linked, most definately
Yet again I'm surprised about how some people take the word of the bible so literally. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth so perhaps their view is indeed the right one, I simply don't believe it and cannot believe it. However with that being said, what surprises me, or what is still unclear to me is how they do it.
Last week I found an old catechism in which there was a citation from the gospel of Luke, I think, which said in order to follow Jesus you must hate yourself and your family too. I don't remember the exact verses (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't remember where) so I searched the web because I was interested in the context of those words or views on those words and of course how this fits in with that commandment that says you should honour your father and mother, alas, I found nothing. Well, not what I was looking for anyway.
I did find that Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and he would divide families. But the bible also states Jesus did come to bring peace on earth.
the meaning of the word "hate" in that verse should actually be translated...love less. So in other words you must love God more than anything else.
So it would seem necessary to study the geographical and historic context as well, yet, I believe there aren't many people how actually do this... And then there's the question of the validity of the theories brought forth by those who have.
i agree wholeheartedly...you haev to look at historic context, word tranlsations, geographic distinctions. The best guide that I cna give is to use strongs concordance (greek word definitions) and then look for agreement amongst scholars on certain things.
I guess my question is how do people who believe in the bible (even if only certain parts) reconcile themselves to this "bible problem"? If the answer is 'faith', then isn't that blind faith?
There are certain things that are blind faith in the christian life. But the nice thing about the bible is that it has internal and external validity.
Another question is, how accurate are modern translations of the bible, in your opinion? And if they're fairly accurate can a person living today understand the bible like it was meant to be understood? Because I'm relatively sure that a person who is born 2000 years from now, would have a hard time understanding today's society. I mean we already have a hard time understanding the people living in other countries. I think some core principles won't change... but everything else does. In that case, can a person substract, so to speak, certain messages from the bible (love thy neighbour...) and live by them and never open the bible again and still be considered a 'christian'?
Well, long post and there are still so many things I'd like to ask but let's leave it at that for now.
I think it is important to look at different tranlsations to help with clarity.
I would say to be considered a christian you have to recognize what christ did for you. You could be considered religious even polite by carrying out a lot of the actions the bible says are good (love they neighbor, don't murder etc....) But that gets into a whole different discussion...grace vs works and that isn't the point of the thread. feel free to pm me (or post questions) if you have questions or would like some resource information.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Yet again I'm surprised about how some people take the word of the bible so literally. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth so perhaps their view is indeed the right one, I simply don't believe it and cannot believe it. However with that being said, what surprises me, or what is still unclear to me is how they do it.
Last week I found an old catechism in which there was a citation from the gospel of Luke, I think, which said in order to follow Jesus you must hate yourself and your family too. I don't remember the exact verses (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't remember where) so I searched the web because I was interested in the context of those words or views on those words and of course how this fits in with that commandment that says you should honour your father and mother, alas, I found nothing. Well, not what I was looking for anyway.
I did find that Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and he would divide families. But the bible also states Jesus did come to bring peace on earth.
Anyway, my point is the bible seems to be full with conundrums, which seem hard to solve. I mean, sure you can read a verse in its entire context but how do we translate something that was written a long long time ago in a desert area somewhere into something which has the same meaning today without losing its original meaning or adding to it.
So it would seem necessary to study the geographical and historic context as well, yet, I believe there aren't many people how actually do this... And then there's the question of the validity of the theories brought forth by those who have.
I guess my question is how do people who believe in the bible (even if only certain parts) reconcile themselves to this "bible problem"? If the answer is 'faith', then isn't that blind faith?
Another question is, how accurate are modern translations of the bible, in your opinion? And if they're fairly accurate can a person living today understand the bible like it was meant to be understood? Because I'm relatively sure that a person who is born 2000 years from now, would have a hard time understanding today's society. I mean we already have a hard time understanding the people living in other countries. I think some core principles won't change... but everything else does. In that case, can a person substract, so to speak, certain messages from the bible (love thy neighbour...) and live by them and never open the bible again and still be considered a 'christian'?
Well, long post and there are still so many things I'd like to ask but let's leave it at that for now.
What you refer to is Luke 14:26
As you know, i'm not a big fan of soundbyte citation of scripture, but here it is as per NIV:
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."
Now, there is a very similar passage in Matthew 10:37 which is very similar:
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Virtually the same with the language used in Luke being much harsher.
To me, i believe Christ's choice of words in Luke is simply an employment of hyperbole, or deliberate exaggeration. Christ was a master of parable and figurative language and used it quite often. The point he is making is that the cost of discipleship is complete devotion. Of course i should honor my mother and father up to the point they attempt to stand in the way of my discipleship with Christ, at which point, i must choose Christ.
See, it is nowhere near the "conundrum" you present it as. Nothing to reconcile.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
"one can read something into anything if one tries hard enough."
Actually I think even that is a parable in the bible somewhere...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yet again I'm surprised about how some people take the word of the bible so literally. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth so perhaps their view is indeed the right one, I simply don't believe it and cannot believe it. However with that being said, what surprises me, or what is still unclear to me is how they do it.
Last week I found an old catechism in which there was a citation from the gospel of Luke, I think, which said in order to follow Jesus you must hate yourself and your family too. I don't remember the exact verses (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't remember where) so I searched the web because I was interested in the context of those words or views on those words and of course how this fits in with that commandment that says you should honour your father and mother, alas, I found nothing. Well, not what I was looking for anyway.
I did find that Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and he would divide families. But the bible also states Jesus did come to bring peace on earth.
Anyway, my point is the bible seems to be full with conundrums, which seem hard to solve. I mean, sure you can read a verse in its entire context but how do we translate something that was written a long long time ago in a desert area somewhere into something which has the same meaning today without losing its original meaning or adding to it.
So it would seem necessary to study the geographical and historic context as well, yet, I believe there aren't many people how actually do this... And then there's the question of the validity of the theories brought forth by those who have.
I guess my question is how do people who believe in the bible (even if only certain parts) reconcile themselves to this "bible problem"? If the answer is 'faith', then isn't that blind faith?
Another question is, how accurate are modern translations of the bible, in your opinion? And if they're fairly accurate can a person living today understand the bible like it was meant to be understood? Because I'm relatively sure that a person who is born 2000 years from now, would have a hard time understanding today's society. I mean we already have a hard time understanding the people living in other countries. I think some core principles won't change... but everything else does. In that case, can a person substract, so to speak, certain messages from the bible (love thy neighbour...) and live by them and never open the bible again and still be considered a 'christian'?
Well, long post and there are still so many things I'd like to ask but let's leave it at that for now.
You are right, the Second Testament gospels must be understood in terms of the world behind the text, ie. Matthew was a devout Jew who wrote his account during the time when the early Christians were being separated from mainstream Judaism. If you can imagine the tension and uncertainty around this time, Christians being excluded from Jewish synagogues and not permitted to maintain their following of Jesus and practise the jewish custom ect. Hence the Jews being portrayed often in a negative light throughout the Gospel.
In addition, Matthew wrote his gospel with the aim of fulfilling the prophecy of a coming messiah to lead the Jewish people out of oppression from the Romans. In much the same way as Moses and King David led the Israelite people towards their own identity, Matthew wrote to justify Jesus as the new Moses who descended from a line of Kings, directly from King David the last great Israelite King. So this was more an institution "on earth" as opposed to a spiritual or heavenly thing. The term Kingdom of Heaven basically translates to a state of affairs here on earth where the Israelite people were in control of their own destiny not the Romans.
Long story short, as I have explained, Matthew's gospel was written with a political spin, and one MUST make an attempt to understand the world behind the text to truly understand the meaning.
The animosity towards Jews over the years has often been attributed to the misinterpretation of Matthew's gospel.
The early Christian's truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah ie. the aanointed one ie. the next great King like King David. Each gospel writer chose to write about Jesus in bid to tell the story but also to convince people that he truly was the Messiah.
The basic principles remain the same, love thy neighbour, love your enemy ect ect ect...but the early Jesus movement were trying to solidify Jesus as the man responsible for leading the people out of oppression. The Jews eventually, probably after Jesus was crucified, looked towards another leader and consequently are still waiting.
The hate part is hating sin. A good example of dividing families is this:
Before my dad became a Christian, he was a drunk and nearly died more than once while DUI. When he became a Christian he completely stopped that cold turkey. He quit hanging with his bro's at bars and eventually his family grew to dislike him because he wouldn't do the things he did with them before. They tried talking him out of it, but he wouldn't budge. There was a constant flow of discouragement from his family, and so he just left them. He loves them, of course.
The peace Jesus talks about is peace with God.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
Yet again I'm surprised about how some people take the word of the bible so literally. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth so perhaps their view is indeed the right one, I simply don't believe it and cannot believe it. However with that being said, what surprises me, or what is still unclear to me is how they do it.
Last week I found an old catechism in which there was a citation from the gospel of Luke, I think, which said in order to follow Jesus you must hate yourself and your family too. I don't remember the exact verses (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't remember where) so I searched the web because I was interested in the context of those words or views on those words and of course how this fits in with that commandment that says you should honour your father and mother, alas, I found nothing. Well, not what I was looking for anyway.
I did find that Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and he would divide families. But the bible also states Jesus did come to bring peace on earth.
Ok, everytime I answer a faith question, people throw things at me here, so please put your bibles down for a second.............(just kidding.......laugh.....joke....)
but here is my spin on it........
I think the Bible is a history book of Jesus as well as the Old Testament can speak for the times before He came. Many faiths are in the Old Testament frame of mind (like Catholic, Greek Orthodox....which I point out because they are the ones I am familiar with.......I was a Greek Orthodox kid who got sent to a Catholic school
talk about a mind fuck........anyway....) because they still feel the need to put a priest between us and God which Jesus came to destroy like when the Holy Of Holies was destroyed upon His death.
The peace He refers to as well as the families He speaks of being divided is I think like the peace you feel after something horrible happens but you stay with it and you grow somehow after it.
just a thought.......but I am a work in progress as I have said in many other posts.........
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I find that people tend to use their Holy Texts to rationalize their actions and justify their means. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is one of the Ten Commandments, yet, how many people who claim to follow the Bible support things such as War and the Death Penalty? The Holy Texts seem to be used as a method for people to do bad things and still feel good about themselves at the end of the day. People tend to pick what they want out of it and leave the rest. is this how it was meant to be used?
...
And I have a pretty good feeling that during the Dark Ages, Revelations was happening in their times. Probably during the influenza of the early 1800s... and during World War I. And I KNOW people were saying the 'End Of Days' was at hand throughout the Cold War. Revelations has already occured throughout history... from certain perspectives. Maybe, it's just a reminder that humanity has not reached the point of being human, yet.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I find that people tend to use their Holy Texts to rationalize their actions and justify their means. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is one of the Ten Commandments, yet, how many people who claim to follow the Bible support things such as War and the Death Penalty? The Holy Texts seem to be used as a method for people to do bad things and still feel good about themselves at the end of the day. People tend to pick what they want out of it and leave the rest. is this how it was meant to be used?
...
And I have a pretty good feeling that during the Dark Ages, Revelations was happening in their times. Probably during the influenza of the early 1800s... and during World War I. And I KNOW people were saying the 'End Of Days' was at hand throughout the Cold War. Revelations has already occured throughout history... from certain perspectives. Maybe, it's just a reminder that humanity has not reached the point of being human, yet.
you're right, people do use holy text to rationalize their means. Technically the commandment is murder but that's splitting hairs. There will always be people who pervert the Bible, or Quran to do what they want. There are many, many more who use them to guide their lives in a good way; it's just that news and media etc... aren't going to say "today 100 million christians didn't bash homosexuals or that 224 million christians in the US didn't try to kill a doctor who performs abortions. They will run with the one or 2 psychos that do stupid things. Proof texting is a very difficult thing. Theoretically, you could use psalms 137:9 to support a christian performing abortions (How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock). That clearly goes against the biblical teachings. My thought is you should use the bible to guide your life not live your life and try to justify actions by using the bible.
One thing about the end times is that every generation thinks they are going through it. Here's the bibles take on it (But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Matthew 24:36) Talking about it is interesting, but no one knows.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Well, the first English translation was made in 1611 and was translated from Greek. How accurate this was is anyone's guess, considering the political and religious influences and prejudices of the time.
As far as what the early Christians believed - as opposed to the first church fathers some 100 years or so later - you should look into the study of such sects as the Essenes. You may also want to read those gospels that the Church fathers deemed blasphemous - a euphemism for threatening, or dangerous - as these works state clearly that we should seek direct communion with God. The Church was obviously upset by these books as it sought a monopoly on religious experience via it's priests, and coffers.
These early 'Christian' sects are known as Gnostic Christians, or simply just as Gnostics.
I would agree and argue that the Bible the way it is written supports a direct relationship between man and God. It is the church (especially the Catholic church) that corrupted that message for greed and control.
thank you for using the example of noah's flood. it has always been my opinion that such a 'flood' did occur. or that it was at least possible within the context of the time. one's world is defined only by one's knowledge. for example, a child's world may be bounded by the creek, the highway and the woods. this is the world they know. this is more than likely the whole world as they are aware of. biblical man's, though somewhat larger, can be defined in commensurate terms. i have heard of the version of the flood involving the dardenelles and some sort of evacuation of water from the mediteranean or conversely the black sea. it made sense to me in this context, much in the same way a primitive person could interpret a tsunami as such a flood and perhaps a vengeance of a God.
and as for thou shalt not kill/ murder, i have addressed this in another thread.
Either believe all of it or believe none of it. If part of the Bible is wrong, then all of it is wrong. I don't understand when people agree with part of the Bible's teachings but disagree with another part, especially when the Bible says that the scriptures are God inspired.
thank you for using the example of noah's flood. it has always been my opinion that such a 'flood' did occur. or that it was at least possible within the context of the time. one's world is defined only by one's knowledge. for example, a child's world may be bounded by the creek, the highway and the woods. this is the world they know. this is more than likely the whole world as they are aware of. biblical man's, though somewhat larger, can be defined in commensurate terms. i have heard of the version of the flood involving the dardenelles and some sort of evacuation of water from the mediteranean or conversely the black sea. it made sense to me in this context, much in the same way a primitive person could interpret a tsunami as such a flood and perhaps a vengeance of a God.
and as for thou shalt not kill/ murder, i have addressed this in another thread.
...
The Story of the Great Flood can be found in the Gilgamesh Tales, which pre-dates the Bible by about 1,000 years. The God of the sky, angry of what Man has been doing, decides to drown all of Mankind. The God of the waters secretly tells the hero, Utnapishtim, to build a boat and place friends, relatives and craftsmen along with gold and silver and animals of all kinds on board. The boat is 7 levels high and it takes him 7 days to complete.
After 7 days and 7 nights of steady rain, Utnapishtim, emerges to see the world has been consumed by water. He sends out a dove, then a swallow and finally a raven to search for land. The boat settles on a mountain top and Utnapishtim sets the animals free and sacrifices a sheep on the spot.
It is very likely that this tale made its way into the Bible as the story of Noah. Just as the Gilgamesh tales were probably recorded in written form from tales that were told from generation to generation back to Neolithic Man.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not able to read through this entire thread and catch up, so I apologize if I cover some points already mentioned. But I have a few things to respond.
When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword he was not referring to war. The sword he is talking about is division. He came to make truth apparent and everyone is to make a choice. They will take one of two sides, life or death. He came to divide families in that some would choose to follow and others would not. He said our worst enemies would be those of our own household. I have seen people outright disowned by their families for following Jesus. I mean, really following him by giving up worldly pagan traditions such as Halloween, Christmas and other holidays and celebrations based on demonic religions. We are told to stop mixing in with the unclean thing.
When Jesus said to hate people, we meant in comparison to himself. This is apparently a Jewish phrasing of the era as well. They did not mean literal hatred, but a relative "less love".
Subject change...many people today are turned off by religion because of the way the general public has come to understand the bible. Religion, under demonic direction as indicated by the Bible, is in place to cause confusion and spread lies. Jesus prophesied all of this when he talked about the weeds growing up with the wheat. Weeds (false Christians) would infiltrate the Christian congregation shortly after the death of the apostles and truth would be perverted. Paul said oppressive wolves would enter the congregation and try to deceive the holy ones.
Quick examples: The Bible says not to be calling each other Father, for one is our father, God. Yet what do most religions call their preacher?
The Bible says the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it. Yet the churches teach that if you are good you go to heaven. This one is a little tougher because there are many scriptures that talk about going to heaven. God said he would take a small remnant of people to heaven to judge the world. This is a reflection of his fairness and insight. He lets humans judge humans. The Bible speaks of a specific number who would gain life in heaven in God's presence. (Rev 6:11; Rev 7:4; Rev 14:1-3) Jesus said he has two flocks of sheep (those who stay on earth and those who go to heaven). He says one group was bought from the earth as first fruits (shows a limit or a number), the other group he said was a great crowd that no man was able to number.
The Bible says that the thought of torturing and burning people is a thought that never came up in God's mind and that the dead are conscious of NOTHING at all. Yet the churches teach in a burning hell. That is, until they scared the donations away and now fewer churches teach in hellfire. What does the bible say about death? It says when a man dies, on that day, his thoughts perish and he returns to the earth. Psalms 146:4 and Ecclesiastes 9:5
Churches teach that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one in the same. The trinity is a pagan concept dating back to ancient Egypt. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests they are one. When Jesus said they are one, he meant they are in agreement or unity. Just like Paul said that Barnabas and himself are one. Obviously two different people. Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24) If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate. And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.”
I could go on and on. If you have a daily routine of reading the Bible and move through it you can see the patterns and you can come to understand how to unlock it. Jesus taught in such a way so that those with ears would hear and yet not get the sense of it and those with eyes would look and yet not see. He wants you to question it and question others and dig deep. He wants loyal followers who put forth great effort to understand and endure. It is actually a perfect and beautiful thing.
The hate part is hating sin. A good example of dividing families is this:
Before my dad became a Christian, he was a drunk and nearly died more than once while DUI. When he became a Christian he completely stopped that cold turkey. He quit hanging with his bro's at bars and eventually his family grew to dislike him because he wouldn't do the things he did with them before. They tried talking him out of it, but he wouldn't budge. There was a constant flow of discouragement from his family, and so he just left them. He loves them, of course.
The peace Jesus talks about is peace with God.
Exactly! The Bible says that when you begin to live life according to God's law, people will look at you with bewilderment and basically shun you because you are different from them. You have put on the new personality.
I know he talks crap sometimes, but here's an interesting question raised by Eddie Vedder when asked if he had views on God:
"Sure. I think it's like a movie that was way too popular. It's a story that's been told too many times and just doesn't mean anything. Man lived on the planet -- [placing his fingers an inch apart], this is 5000 years of semi-recorded history. And God and the Bible, that came in somewhere around the middle, maybe 2000. This is the last 2000, this is what we're about to celebrate [indicating about an 1/8th of an inch with his fingers]. Now, humans, in some shape or form, have been on the earth for three million years [pointing across the room to indicate the distance]. So, all this time, from there [gesturing toward the other side of the room], to here [indicating the 1/8th of an inch], there was no God, there was no story, there was no myth and people lived on this planet and they wandered and they gathered and they did all these things. The planet was never threatened. How did they survive for all this time without this belief in God? I'd like to ask this to someone who knows about Christianity and maybe you do. That just seems funny to me."
Cymru Am Byth
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
I'm not able to read through this entire thread and catch up, so I apologize if I cover some points already mentioned. But I have a few things to respond.
When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword he was not referring to war. The sword he is talking about is division. He came to make truth apparent and everyone is to make a choice. They will take one of two sides, life or death. He came to divide families in that some would choose to follow and others would not. He said our worst enemies would be those of our own household. I have seen people outright disowned by their families for following Jesus. I mean, really following him by giving up worldly pagan traditions such as Halloween, Christmas and other holidays and celebrations based on demonic religions. We are told to stop mixing in with the unclean thing.
When Jesus said to hate people, we meant in comparison to himself. This is apparently a Jewish phrasing of the era as well. They did not mean literal hatred, but a relative "less love".
Subject change...many people today are turned off by religion because of the way the general public has come to understand the bible. Religion, under demonic direction as indicated by the Bible, is in place to cause confusion and spread lies. Jesus prophesied all of this when he talked about the weeds growing up with the wheat. Weeds (false Christians) would infiltrate the Christian congregation shortly after the death of the apostles and truth would be perverted. Paul said oppressive wolves would enter the congregation and try to deceive the holy ones.
Quick examples: The Bible says not to be calling each other Father, for one is our father, God. Yet what do most religions call their preacher?
The Bible says the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it. Yet the churches teach that if you are good you go to heaven. This one is a little tougher because there are many scriptures that talk about going to heaven. God said he would take a small remnant of people to heaven to judge the world. This is a reflection of his fairness and insight. He lets humans judge humans. The Bible speaks of a specific number who would gain life in heaven in God's presence. (Rev 6:11; Rev 7:4; Rev 14:1-3) Jesus said he has two flocks of sheep (those who stay on earth and those who go to heaven). He says one group was bought from the earth as first fruits (shows a limit or a number), the other group he said was a great crowd that no man was able to number.
The Bible says that the thought of torturing and burning people is a thought that never came up in God's mind and that the dead are conscious of NOTHING at all. Yet the churches teach in a burning hell. That is, until they scared the donations away and now fewer churches teach in hellfire. What does the bible say about death? It says when a man dies, on that day, his thoughts perish and he returns to the earth. Psalms 146:4 and Ecclesiastes 9:5
Churches teach that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one in the same. The trinity is a pagan concept dating back to ancient Egypt. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests they are one. When Jesus said they are one, he meant they are in agreement or unity. Just like Paul said that Barnabas and himself are one. Obviously two different people. Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24) If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate. And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.”
I could go on and on. If you have a daily routine of reading the Bible and move through it you can see the patterns and you can come to understand how to unlock it. Jesus taught in such a way so that those with ears would hear and yet not get the sense of it and those with eyes would look and yet not see. He wants you to question it and question others and dig deep. He wants loyal followers who put forth great effort to understand and endure. It is actually a perfect and beautiful thing.
...
You sound more like a follower of Christ... than a Christian. In that, you are taking on Christ's teaching yourself... instead of having some dude in a robe tell you what Jesus said and make his interpretations.
The only thing i have against religion... it's not for me.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
You sound more like a follower of Christ... than a Christian. In that, you are taking on Christ's teaching yourself... instead of having some dude in a robe tell you what Jesus said and make his interpretations.
The only thing i have against religion... it's not for me.
If I understand what you are saying correctly, then, Thank you. Yes, I have yet to see a guy in a robe (at least in this era) have anything of value fall out of his mouth.
And I just wanted to add that that quote from Eddie is, well...he is completely wrong. Ironically, the only thing that suggests that humans have existed more than 7000 years or so is carbon dating. Let's say that room he is talking about is these 7000 years, well, the concept of carbon dating has only been known to us for that 1/8 of an inch. And here is what we know of carbon: When we watch it's reaction to it's environment, it decays at a certain rate. So we take the rate we measured for a few years of study (even less than that 1/8 of an inch) and we see a speed of decay and we say well, this is the speed of carbonic decay so let's apply this formula to everything. The fullness of understanding the entire process carbon goes through is beyond our grasp. We are babes.
Here is the irony, Eddie condemns the Bible because it supposedly only existed for this relative small period of time (which carries no real weight anyway). But the foundation for his argument is based on a science that has only been touched on or supposedly understood for a relative small period of time.
And I just wanted to add that that quote from Eddie is, well...he is completely wrong. Ironically, the only thing that suggests that humans have existed more than 7000 years or so is carbon dating. Let's say that room he is talking about is these 7000 years, well, the concept of carbon dating has only been known to us for that 1/8 of an inch. And here is what we know of carbon: When we watch it's reaction to it's environment, it decays at a certain rate. So we take the rate we measured for a few years of study (even less than that 1/8 of an inch) and we see a speed of decay and we say well, this is the speed of carbonic decay so let's apply this formula to everything. The fullness of understanding the entire process carbon goes through is beyond our grasp. We are babes.
He's completely wrong? Any evidence he's wrong? There are quite a few radiometric dating methods and they all say the earth is at least 4 billion years old. That's like four (I think it's at least four) different clocks telling you it's 6am yet you believe they're all wrong. But why exactly do you believe it's wrong?
Is it become an old earth doesn't fit in with your views?
Because I'm sorry to say the methods creationist "scientists" use are anything but scientific and should be ignored completely, especially if you attack radiometric like you did.
So to me it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're just discarding radiometric dating because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs not because it's supposedly inaccurate. I think creationists say it's inaccurate because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs and not the other way around, and they use this as the basis of all their "scientific" proof.
The majority, almost all scientists agree on this, only a very small number of people don't... and they happen to be creationists.
I don't know it seems weird to me. It's like the 4 clocks. They all say it's 6am, the entire clock and watchmaker community agree that these clocks are fairly and reasonably accurate. And the you have a group who says it's not 6am, which conveniently fits in with their beliefs, yet there's no evidence, no theory, nothing to back it up.
He's completely wrong? Any evidence he's wrong? There are quite a few radiometric dating methods and they all say the earth is at least 4 billion years old. That's like four (I think it's at least four) different clocks telling you it's 6am yet you believe they're all wrong. But why exactly do you believe it's wrong?
Is it become an old earth doesn't fit in with your views?
Because I'm sorry to say the methods creationist "scientists" use are anything but scientific and should be ignored completely, especially if you attack radiometric like you did.
So to me it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're just discarding radiometric dating because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs not because it's supposedly inaccurate. I think creationists say it's inaccurate because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs and not the other way around, and they use this as the basis of all their "scientific" proof.
The majority, almost all scientists agree on this, only a very small number of people don't... and they happen to be creationists.
I don't know it seems weird to me. It's like the 4 clocks. They all say it's 6am, the entire clock and watchmaker community agree that these clocks are fairly and reasonably accurate. And the you have a group who says it's not 6am, which conveniently fits in with their beliefs, yet there's no evidence, no theory, nothing to back it up.
We're talking about two different things. I have no idea how old the earth is. Neither I, nor Eddie, were talking about the age of the earth.
We're talking about two different things. I have no idea how old the earth is. Neither I, nor Eddie, were talking about the age of the earth.
You dismissed carbon dating, so I can assume you'd dismiss it as proof of how old the earth is, right?
Either way, you're right, it wasn't about the age of the earth, you were talking about how long humans have existed. So forget my previous post.
I still don't see how you can say Vedder is completely wrong. Do you have anything to back up that claim?
And the clock analogy still works, I think. You claim there's no real proof that humans have existed longer than 7000 years, the entire scientific community on the other hand claims there is proof viz. fossil records, chemical residues, etc. which they dated with radiometric dating methods.
What's your theory? Where do you get that number, 7000? Where's the hard evidence that proves Vedder (or the entire scientific community) completely wrong?
Comments
we believe the same but for different reasons. maybe it's because i'm a stubborn old sod but i still connect it with global warming. the governments turning on religion is the governments FAILURE TO TURN TO religion when the shite hits the fan.
with all the flooding i don't see the un even existing. i think a LEADER will try to sway the masses with false promises.
well im only 22 so i know ive alot to learn!
i believe global warming is linked, most definately
i'm still a stubborn old sod and that's as close as you'll get to me age.
with age comes wisdom!!.*........
and yu surely sound wise
* along with diminishing health, looks etc
the meaning of the word "hate" in that verse should actually be translated...love less. So in other words you must love God more than anything else.
i agree wholeheartedly...you haev to look at historic context, word tranlsations, geographic distinctions. The best guide that I cna give is to use strongs concordance (greek word definitions) and then look for agreement amongst scholars on certain things.
There are certain things that are blind faith in the christian life. But the nice thing about the bible is that it has internal and external validity.
modern translations try to capture the original greek/ hebrew intent and words. They are put together by true biblical scholars. Here's a snippet about different translations: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=49
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31&lang=2
I think it is important to look at different tranlsations to help with clarity.
I would say to be considered a christian you have to recognize what christ did for you. You could be considered religious even polite by carrying out a lot of the actions the bible says are good (love they neighbor, don't murder etc....) But that gets into a whole different discussion...grace vs works and that isn't the point of the thread. feel free to pm me (or post questions) if you have questions or would like some resource information.
that depends on who you talk to around here. to some i am a blessing; to others i'm a curse. but thank you for the compliment.
your ace for an old chap!
he he he
shame your old and probably taken, you sound cool!
open minded
As you know, i'm not a big fan of soundbyte citation of scripture, but here it is as per NIV:
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."
Now, there is a very similar passage in Matthew 10:37 which is very similar:
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Virtually the same with the language used in Luke being much harsher.
To me, i believe Christ's choice of words in Luke is simply an employment of hyperbole, or deliberate exaggeration. Christ was a master of parable and figurative language and used it quite often. The point he is making is that the cost of discipleship is complete devotion. Of course i should honor my mother and father up to the point they attempt to stand in the way of my discipleship with Christ, at which point, i must choose Christ.
See, it is nowhere near the "conundrum" you present it as. Nothing to reconcile.
Actually I think even that is a parable in the bible somewhere...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You are right, the Second Testament gospels must be understood in terms of the world behind the text, ie. Matthew was a devout Jew who wrote his account during the time when the early Christians were being separated from mainstream Judaism. If you can imagine the tension and uncertainty around this time, Christians being excluded from Jewish synagogues and not permitted to maintain their following of Jesus and practise the jewish custom ect. Hence the Jews being portrayed often in a negative light throughout the Gospel.
In addition, Matthew wrote his gospel with the aim of fulfilling the prophecy of a coming messiah to lead the Jewish people out of oppression from the Romans. In much the same way as Moses and King David led the Israelite people towards their own identity, Matthew wrote to justify Jesus as the new Moses who descended from a line of Kings, directly from King David the last great Israelite King. So this was more an institution "on earth" as opposed to a spiritual or heavenly thing. The term Kingdom of Heaven basically translates to a state of affairs here on earth where the Israelite people were in control of their own destiny not the Romans.
Long story short, as I have explained, Matthew's gospel was written with a political spin, and one MUST make an attempt to understand the world behind the text to truly understand the meaning.
The animosity towards Jews over the years has often been attributed to the misinterpretation of Matthew's gospel.
The early Christian's truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah ie. the aanointed one ie. the next great King like King David. Each gospel writer chose to write about Jesus in bid to tell the story but also to convince people that he truly was the Messiah.
The basic principles remain the same, love thy neighbour, love your enemy ect ect ect...but the early Jesus movement were trying to solidify Jesus as the man responsible for leading the people out of oppression. The Jews eventually, probably after Jesus was crucified, looked towards another leader and consequently are still waiting.
CP? Is that really you?!
Before my dad became a Christian, he was a drunk and nearly died more than once while DUI. When he became a Christian he completely stopped that cold turkey. He quit hanging with his bro's at bars and eventually his family grew to dislike him because he wouldn't do the things he did with them before. They tried talking him out of it, but he wouldn't budge. There was a constant flow of discouragement from his family, and so he just left them. He loves them, of course.
The peace Jesus talks about is peace with God.
Nope. Never.
Congratulations on the upcoming nuptials.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
...
And I have a pretty good feeling that during the Dark Ages, Revelations was happening in their times. Probably during the influenza of the early 1800s... and during World War I. And I KNOW people were saying the 'End Of Days' was at hand throughout the Cold War. Revelations has already occured throughout history... from certain perspectives. Maybe, it's just a reminder that humanity has not reached the point of being human, yet.
Hail, Hail!!!
you're right, people do use holy text to rationalize their means. Technically the commandment is murder but that's splitting hairs. There will always be people who pervert the Bible, or Quran to do what they want. There are many, many more who use them to guide their lives in a good way; it's just that news and media etc... aren't going to say "today 100 million christians didn't bash homosexuals or that 224 million christians in the US didn't try to kill a doctor who performs abortions. They will run with the one or 2 psychos that do stupid things. Proof texting is a very difficult thing. Theoretically, you could use psalms 137:9 to support a christian performing abortions (How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock). That clearly goes against the biblical teachings. My thought is you should use the bible to guide your life not live your life and try to justify actions by using the bible.
One thing about the end times is that every generation thinks they are going through it. Here's the bibles take on it (But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Matthew 24:36) Talking about it is interesting, but no one knows.
I would agree and argue that the Bible the way it is written supports a direct relationship between man and God. It is the church (especially the Catholic church) that corrupted that message for greed and control.
Either believe all of it or believe none of it. If part of the Bible is wrong, then all of it is wrong. I don't understand when people agree with part of the Bible's teachings but disagree with another part, especially when the Bible says that the scriptures are God inspired.
The Story of the Great Flood can be found in the Gilgamesh Tales, which pre-dates the Bible by about 1,000 years. The God of the sky, angry of what Man has been doing, decides to drown all of Mankind. The God of the waters secretly tells the hero, Utnapishtim, to build a boat and place friends, relatives and craftsmen along with gold and silver and animals of all kinds on board. The boat is 7 levels high and it takes him 7 days to complete.
After 7 days and 7 nights of steady rain, Utnapishtim, emerges to see the world has been consumed by water. He sends out a dove, then a swallow and finally a raven to search for land. The boat settles on a mountain top and Utnapishtim sets the animals free and sacrifices a sheep on the spot.
It is very likely that this tale made its way into the Bible as the story of Noah. Just as the Gilgamesh tales were probably recorded in written form from tales that were told from generation to generation back to Neolithic Man.
Hail, Hail!!!
When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword he was not referring to war. The sword he is talking about is division. He came to make truth apparent and everyone is to make a choice. They will take one of two sides, life or death. He came to divide families in that some would choose to follow and others would not. He said our worst enemies would be those of our own household. I have seen people outright disowned by their families for following Jesus. I mean, really following him by giving up worldly pagan traditions such as Halloween, Christmas and other holidays and celebrations based on demonic religions. We are told to stop mixing in with the unclean thing.
When Jesus said to hate people, we meant in comparison to himself. This is apparently a Jewish phrasing of the era as well. They did not mean literal hatred, but a relative "less love".
Subject change...many people today are turned off by religion because of the way the general public has come to understand the bible. Religion, under demonic direction as indicated by the Bible, is in place to cause confusion and spread lies. Jesus prophesied all of this when he talked about the weeds growing up with the wheat. Weeds (false Christians) would infiltrate the Christian congregation shortly after the death of the apostles and truth would be perverted. Paul said oppressive wolves would enter the congregation and try to deceive the holy ones.
Quick examples: The Bible says not to be calling each other Father, for one is our father, God. Yet what do most religions call their preacher?
The Bible says the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it. Yet the churches teach that if you are good you go to heaven. This one is a little tougher because there are many scriptures that talk about going to heaven. God said he would take a small remnant of people to heaven to judge the world. This is a reflection of his fairness and insight. He lets humans judge humans. The Bible speaks of a specific number who would gain life in heaven in God's presence. (Rev 6:11; Rev 7:4; Rev 14:1-3) Jesus said he has two flocks of sheep (those who stay on earth and those who go to heaven). He says one group was bought from the earth as first fruits (shows a limit or a number), the other group he said was a great crowd that no man was able to number.
The Bible says that the thought of torturing and burning people is a thought that never came up in God's mind and that the dead are conscious of NOTHING at all. Yet the churches teach in a burning hell. That is, until they scared the donations away and now fewer churches teach in hellfire. What does the bible say about death? It says when a man dies, on that day, his thoughts perish and he returns to the earth. Psalms 146:4 and Ecclesiastes 9:5
Churches teach that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one in the same. The trinity is a pagan concept dating back to ancient Egypt. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests they are one. When Jesus said they are one, he meant they are in agreement or unity. Just like Paul said that Barnabas and himself are one. Obviously two different people. Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24) If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate. And this is why Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I.”
I could go on and on. If you have a daily routine of reading the Bible and move through it you can see the patterns and you can come to understand how to unlock it. Jesus taught in such a way so that those with ears would hear and yet not get the sense of it and those with eyes would look and yet not see. He wants you to question it and question others and dig deep. He wants loyal followers who put forth great effort to understand and endure. It is actually a perfect and beautiful thing.
Exactly! The Bible says that when you begin to live life according to God's law, people will look at you with bewilderment and basically shun you because you are different from them. You have put on the new personality.
"Sure. I think it's like a movie that was way too popular. It's a story that's been told too many times and just doesn't mean anything. Man lived on the planet -- [placing his fingers an inch apart], this is 5000 years of semi-recorded history. And God and the Bible, that came in somewhere around the middle, maybe 2000. This is the last 2000, this is what we're about to celebrate [indicating about an 1/8th of an inch with his fingers]. Now, humans, in some shape or form, have been on the earth for three million years [pointing across the room to indicate the distance]. So, all this time, from there [gesturing toward the other side of the room], to here [indicating the 1/8th of an inch], there was no God, there was no story, there was no myth and people lived on this planet and they wandered and they gathered and they did all these things. The planet was never threatened. How did they survive for all this time without this belief in God? I'd like to ask this to someone who knows about Christianity and maybe you do. That just seems funny to me."
PJ albums, at the moment!! -
1,Vs 2,Vitalogy 3,No Code 4,Yield 5,Ten 6,Backspacer, 7Pearl Jam 8,Binaural 9,Riot Act.
You sound more like a follower of Christ... than a Christian. In that, you are taking on Christ's teaching yourself... instead of having some dude in a robe tell you what Jesus said and make his interpretations.
The only thing i have against religion... it's not for me.
Hail, Hail!!!
And I just wanted to add that that quote from Eddie is, well...he is completely wrong. Ironically, the only thing that suggests that humans have existed more than 7000 years or so is carbon dating. Let's say that room he is talking about is these 7000 years, well, the concept of carbon dating has only been known to us for that 1/8 of an inch. And here is what we know of carbon: When we watch it's reaction to it's environment, it decays at a certain rate. So we take the rate we measured for a few years of study (even less than that 1/8 of an inch) and we see a speed of decay and we say well, this is the speed of carbonic decay so let's apply this formula to everything. The fullness of understanding the entire process carbon goes through is beyond our grasp. We are babes.
Here is the irony, Eddie condemns the Bible because it supposedly only existed for this relative small period of time (which carries no real weight anyway). But the foundation for his argument is based on a science that has only been touched on or supposedly understood for a relative small period of time.
He's completely wrong? Any evidence he's wrong? There are quite a few radiometric dating methods and they all say the earth is at least 4 billion years old. That's like four (I think it's at least four) different clocks telling you it's 6am yet you believe they're all wrong. But why exactly do you believe it's wrong?
Is it become an old earth doesn't fit in with your views?
Because I'm sorry to say the methods creationist "scientists" use are anything but scientific and should be ignored completely, especially if you attack radiometric like you did.
So to me it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're just discarding radiometric dating because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs not because it's supposedly inaccurate. I think creationists say it's inaccurate because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs and not the other way around, and they use this as the basis of all their "scientific" proof.
The majority, almost all scientists agree on this, only a very small number of people don't... and they happen to be creationists.
I don't know it seems weird to me. It's like the 4 clocks. They all say it's 6am, the entire clock and watchmaker community agree that these clocks are fairly and reasonably accurate. And the you have a group who says it's not 6am, which conveniently fits in with their beliefs, yet there's no evidence, no theory, nothing to back it up.
naděje umírá poslední
We're talking about two different things. I have no idea how old the earth is. Neither I, nor Eddie, were talking about the age of the earth.
You dismissed carbon dating, so I can assume you'd dismiss it as proof of how old the earth is, right?
Either way, you're right, it wasn't about the age of the earth, you were talking about how long humans have existed. So forget my previous post.
I still don't see how you can say Vedder is completely wrong. Do you have anything to back up that claim?
And the clock analogy still works, I think. You claim there's no real proof that humans have existed longer than 7000 years, the entire scientific community on the other hand claims there is proof viz. fossil records, chemical residues, etc. which they dated with radiometric dating methods.
What's your theory? Where do you get that number, 7000? Where's the hard evidence that proves Vedder (or the entire scientific community) completely wrong?
naděje umírá poslední