The Absolute Power of Christianity!

what do you mean? I don't remember any red text in my bible that said "I am God". as a matter of fact the scriptures a provided said the exact opposite. if A=B and CB then CA, right? can you provide any passages that quote Jesus saying he was God?

Originally posted by passengername
should we have faith that God well help us through our problems or have faith that he exists at all. and even if we have faith that God exists, we'd also need faith that Jesus was God according to many christians. I personally believe that Jesus was not God, but a good son of God. but aren't we all children of God?

Mark 10:18 - And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Luke 18:19 - And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.


Matthew 5:9 - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Romans 8:14 - For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

These indeed are good quotes but you're leaving out some, like one favorite, John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

It doesn't say "Sons". Notice Son is capitalized here, but not in the beattitudes.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

Matthew 16:13-20 (emphesis added)

3When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Jesus, if He wasn't the son of God, could have no authority to grant Peter the keys to Heaven.

Matthew 26:62-64

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Here Jesus directly says He is the Christ.

John 10:23-25

23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,

This is slightly different, in that Jesus implies that he is the Christ, but doesn't directly come out and say it. He simply says He has already told them and they did not believe.

John 11: 25-28

25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

27"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

28And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. "The Teacher is here," she said, "and is asking for you."

He who believes in me? That would be complete blasphemy if Jesus were not the Christ. He is saying that, through him, we can come to know the Father. We just have to believe in him (not believe him).

Also, it sounds as if the epistles have been dismissed, if you're looking for the words of Christ talking about being the Christ, and not anything written by Mark, John, Peter, Paul, or any of the other writers in the New Testament. How can you believe the Gospels are factual but the epistles are not?

Finally, the evidence for Christ is not only found in the New Testament. Isaiah and Jerimiah both have lots of prophesy concerning the coming of the Christ, the messiah, God made flesh, and Jesus fulfills them all.

EDIT:

Originally posted by saint4God
These indeed are good quotes but you're leaving out some, like one favorite, John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

It doesn't say "Sons". Notice Son is capitalized here, but not in the beattitudes.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

I can't believe I forgot that one!!!

[edit on 9-1-2005 by junglejake]

you got me there Saint4God. but it is peculiar that in this Jesus quote, he is referring to himself in third person where in my quotes they are first person.

Originally posted by junglejake
Matthew 26:62-64

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Here Jesus directly says He is the Christ.

this is what it says in the KJV:
But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

mark 15:2 And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.

luke 23:3 And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

and I find this scripture particularly interesting
Matthew 24:5 - For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.

why would he say they would come in his name if he was suggesting that they would try to take his place as the Christ? if Jesus was the Christ and I wanted people to think I was, wouldn't I come in my name?


I am intrested in what version of the bible do you study? not to say one is better than the other but some are older than others.
[edit on 1-9-2005 by passengername]

[edit on 1-9-2005 by passengername]

Originally posted by passengername
you got me there Saint4God.

Wohoo! But more concerned about you get Him. Hoped I did something to further that, rather than score any point.

Originally posted by passengername
but it is peculiar that in this Jesus quote, he is referring to himself in third person where in my quotes they are first person.

Yes! It is. Hmm. That one is going to take me some time to think about. Anyone have answer as to why perhaps?

My version is the New International Version for 2 reasons:
1.) I'm not very good with the queen's english. "Thee, thou thine prithee bestoweth upon art, etc."
2.) It was translated from original Hebrew and Greek texts by over 200 scholars who specialized in such.

May love, faith and hope be with you always,
God bless.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

That Jesus quote from John 3:16 isn't actually quoting Jesus. It is John saying what God did, encapsulating the entire message in one brief verse.

I actually usually study scripture through biblegateway.com... which allows you to read several different translations. I bounce between several, trying to get the general idea of what specific words mean. They have 19 English translations, and several other languages as well.

why would he say they would come in his name if he was suggesting that they would try to take his place as the Christ? if Jesus was the Christ and I wanted people to think I was, wouldn't I come in my name?

I think he was implying they were going to try to usurp his name. Kind of like what David Koresh did in Waco, making people believe he was the messiah.

EDIT: Typically, I, too, start with the New International Version, and often check the Amplified, Living, and Message translations to see if they interpret a word in the same manner I do. Can't wait to learn Greek

[edit on 9-1-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake
That Jesus quote from John 3:16 isn't actually quoting Jesus. It is John saying what God did, encapsulating the entire message in one brief verse.

Gonna have to disagree with you here my brother, for three reasons:
1.) In John 3:10 he begins to speak and it says, "...said Jesus..." then continues to quote him until John 3:22, where it goes back to John's narrative.
2.) I've got a "Words of Christ in Red Letters" Bible that was reviewed by 200 scholars who have translated the original text to say that yes, these are the words of Christ.
3.) Jesus starts his narrative in first person, then switches after answering his own (rhetorical) question to reposition himself as a witness. Why he does this I don't know (per above), but the fact that he does is pretty clear to me.

Originally posted by junglejake
I actually usually study scripture through biblegateway.com... which allows you to read several different translations. I bounce between several, trying to get the general idea of what specific words mean. They have 19 English translations, and several other languages as well.

I'm worried that in reading perhaps a few misqueued translations that it could possibly perceived it otherwise my friend. We should both pray about this one I think.

Originally posted by junglejake
EDIT: Typically, I, too, start with the New International Version, and often check the Amplified, Living, and Message translations to see if they interpret a word in the same manner I do. Can't wait to learn Greek

I'm looking forward to Greek and you'll be starting and finished before I will so looking forward to your analysis.


[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

Whoop, good catch. Behold the danger of taking a single verse out of context!

As to missing the intention of the words, generally the words all mean the same thing, but we have different perceptions of them. Take, for example, Luke 1:28. In the King James version, it says:

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The NIV translates it:

28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

Both say, essensially, "Hello", but in the King James version, the word chosen, "hail" has two meanings. Websters defines hail as:

Main Entry: 3hail
Function: interjection
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse heill, from heill healthy -- more at WHOLE
1 archaic -- used as a salutation
2 -- used to express acclamation

Many people take that "hail" to be the expression of acclamation, not a mere greeting. That's why I like to get multiple translations; it removes my own prejudices of words so I can see which meaning is implied when the context doesn't help.

Originally posted by junglejake
Whoop, good catch. Behold the danger of taking a single verse out of context!

*phew* You scared me with that one. Glad to hear all is good.

Originally posted by junglejake
As to missing the intention of the words, generally the words all mean the same thing, but we have different perceptions of them. Take, for example, Luke 1:28. In the King James version, it says:

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The NIV translates it:

28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

Both say, essensially, "Hello", but in the King James version, the word chosen, "hail" has two meanings. Websters defines hail as:

Main Entry: 3hail
Function: interjection
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse heill, from heill healthy -- more at WHOLE
1 archaic -- used as a salutation
2 -- used to express acclamation

Many people take that "hail" to be the expression of acclamation, not a mere greeting. That's why I like to get multiple translations; it removes my own prejudices of words so I can see which meaning is implied when the context doesn't help.

Oh yeah yeah, definately! I'm down wit it and think you're doing fabulous work on the research, digging in to many definitions and translations.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by junglejake
If that's the case, though, you then have to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't. How do you make the judgement of what it true and what is false?

i thought that's what most christians do anyway? pick and choose what and what not to believe. hence, should we interpret genesis literally or perhaps more as a metaphor explanation. should we teach more about the wraithful god from the old testament or perhaps teach more about the loving god of the new testament.

Originally posted by saint4God
With Biology as my major, I'd come to the conclusion that biodiversity is such a necessary component for a viable ecosystem that life as we know it could not have been "grown" through evolution, but there are already threads out there still going through this kind of discussion.

i believe you've said before that you've studied evolution at university and you still came out as a christian. the thing is there must be 'something' about evolution otherwise people would believe in it, and there also must be 'something' about christianity that also makes people believe in that. often you hear of people saying they had a near death experience and they believe there was some sort of devine intervention. often children will be brought up as christians and stay on the same path for the rest of their lives. the difference between religion and evolution is that no one is really brought up with an evolution background, yet many are brought up with a religious background.

The Book did not make me believe. I sought out God. God then pointed me to the Book. I state this only to say that it is not only very possible, but did in fact happen. Perhaps some people can read the Book and believe.

well...before i even knew what evolution was or learnt anything about it i spent enough time in church, and i never had any sort of 'experience'. nowadays after learning about evolution i then proceeded to learn about the bible as it's pretty ignorant to just do one or the other without hearing both sides. after seeing both sides, and nothing in the way of 'proof' to sway me over to your side i'm pretty much settled with evolution. i'm not saying my mind's completly closed, but right now there's nothing that i've read or heard that makes me think twice about my decision.

And that's totally okay, but can I ask for an open mind ready to accept evidence?

my minds pretty much open. i would very much appreciate evidence as to why 'you' would believe, and why all these others also believe, and finally why i should believe.

Let's back up then to just before that turn. What's the biggest issue you have and we'll go one at a time.

the four gospels, the accounts of jesus christ. written in a diary/journal type style to make the reader believe they were written whilst they were following jesus. another misconception is that the four gospels were written by disciples of jesus, when they were not, of which is a popular bible scholars belief. even if some parts are written from eye witness testamonies, or people that 'say' they met jesus, it doesn't come close to making any of it true. so if you could explain to me the four gospels, perhaps most important books about jesus' life, and why 'you' believe to be word for word correct, that would be a start. personally 'why four'? out of the possibly thousands that met jesus only four people wrote about him, and even then three were mere copies of originals.

Originally posted by junglejake
Finally, the evidence for Christ is not only found in the New Testament. Isaiah and Jerimiah both have lots of prophesy concerning the coming of the Christ, the messiah, God made flesh, and Jesus fulfills them all.

i know you could probably give me a list of the 'prophecies' that apparently came true. yet, the only proof of these prophecies being fulfilled by this jesus character is mostly in the four gospels, of which are not credible sources. if the four gospels were used in a court case, as evidence to 'prove' jesus existed, they'd be thrown out.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by shaunybaby]

I've never used the NIV. did a little looking on the web and see that it was written less than 30 years ago I then went on to read how these scholars who translated it tweaked the words so us morons can better understand what the authors meant to say! aren't we supposed to leave the bible as is, don't add or take away. this is exactly what causes people to question the bible and it's authenticity. I've never thought about studying any other language except for maybe spanish (so I can talk to my neighbors) but it seems for my own good I better learn some dead languages. greek, latin and aramaic. it's almost like that game we used to play in elementary school where you wispered something in your neighbors ear and passed it on through the class and by the time you get to the last person, the message has completely changed. I am a person who wants to have faith which is why I study. but when you begin as a kid with the idea that the gospels were actually written by the apostles, only to find out that it was second, third, tenth person descriptions, only to find out that it was translated upteen times, only to find out that what I read was voted on by MEN as to whether these books will be allowed or not, to new translations thousands of years later and on and on.

it's kinda discouraging. I wonder how many times the koran has been translated and messed with or the bhuddist texts(if they have one?) or the hari kristnas for that matter? thats why I started this thread www.belowtopsecret.com...'


"And because wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow cold. "

[edit on 1-9-2005 by passengername]

The problem arises with language differences. Some languages use terms that there is no equivelant in the host language. As I said on another thread, Hebrew only has one form of past tense, while english has several denoting various aspects of past tense. Most translations are made off of the original Greek and Hebrew into the host language to avoid the telephone game. It is a common misconception that it was translated from greek to latin, from latin to some other language, some other language to yet another, then from yet another to English.

As Saint said, the NIV was a collaborative translation by many biblical scholars made off of the original language. They used the modern English words that best described the words of the authors of the Gospels, epistles, and rest of the Bible, taking into account how the English language is used today. For example, saying "Greetings" instead of "Hail", because the only common use today for hail can be seen in songs such as "Hail to the Chief".

I wonder how many of these scholars were muslim, hindu or atheist? did these people already have an idea of what they were to translate meaning was their translation objective or subjective?

Originally posted by junglejake

As to your comment about someone being alive only after they left the womb, what about early deliveries? We are capable of being "born" after only 7 months and surviving. Since a doctor can force birth at that point on anyone, wouldn't it stand to reason that we're alive at least 2 months before the due date?

Well I guess my reasoning wasnt very good, but up until a certain point were are not a baby. Why not go so far as to say we are alive as sperm? The fetus is always "alive", but if the fetus came ouside the womb, would it still be alive?

Originally posted by spamandham
There is no "right" and "wrong", there are only consequences. What we call "right" is that which tends to result in positive consequences, and that which we call "wrong" is that which tends to result in negative consequences.

I agree with this statement and this was the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by spamandham
So then who's ethics are better, mine or the Biblical inerrantist?

I dont know how anyone could take the Bible literally. Even if it was all first hand accounts, it has been translated too many times to count.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I dont know how anyone could take the Bible literally. Even if it was all first hand accounts, it has been translated too many times to count.

But generally it's translated from the original source. Today movies are sent all across the world in that country's language. Do they first ship the movie from Hollywood to Paris, where it's translated to French, then to Germany where the French version is translated to German, then to Italy where the German version is translated to Italian, then to India where the Italian version is translated into Hindi, then to China where the Hindi version is translated to Chinese, then to Japan, where the Chinese version is translated to Japanese? Or do all the countries translate off of the original? We have Greek and Hebrew texts, and a funamental part of going to seminary is learning both languages. People translate from the original text, not from a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation.

Originally posted by saint4God
Enacting death upon another I think is bad (especially when their future afterwards is undecided), but we'll get to that in a moment per below.

When President Truman dropped Atmoic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki he killed millions of innocent men women and children. Now at frist this may seem like soemthing terrible, but when you consider what he prevented its not that bad. He in effect stopped World War II, saving more lives than were lost. Do you see my reasoning?

Originally posted by saint4God
Did they enact a killing? Rather, they are trying to save lives, not destroy them. They need more props than we give them for that.

I was talking about assisted suicide.

Originally posted by saint4God
But what does "putting someone out of their misery" mean? Are you certain you're not sending them to a worse misery? Perhaps it's a misery for us not having their presence?

That should be their choice to make.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
nor do I think an abortion is for anyone but the child. I do not support abortion so that the mother can have a better life, I support it so that the child does not have a bad one.

Originally posted by saint4God
Rather, we're making the decision on that child's fate before giving her/him a opportunity to decide for themselves. That's where I think we're committing the error.

Well once he has the ability to reason, its illegal for him to make that desicion.

Originally posted by saint4God
The system works, but only if we use it as intended.

Thats my point, its not being used as intended.

Originally posted by junglejake
But generally it's translated from the original source.

If the Bible had originally been written in modern English, and assuming it was mostly like what we have, and assuming we knew exactly who the authors were it could still not be taken seriously. It's filled with fantastic stories supported by nothing but the words of a few men.

After all, the Book of Mormon was written originally in English and has the seals of eight witnesses who attest to its truth, which is more than the NT has going for it.

Clearly, that level of evidence is not sufficient to establish the veracity of fantastic claims. You simply can't dismiss the possibility that it is a lie/conspiracy/insanity. These other possibilities have known non-negligible probabilities, whereas things like talking donkeys, pigs, and snakes are never witnessed.

Originally posted by saint4God
But what does "putting someone out of their misery" mean? Are you certain you're not sending them to a worse misery? Perhaps it's a misery for us not having their presence?

i think if someone wants to be put out of their misery, and believe there not to be any worse misery ahead if this 'act' is carried out, then by all means they should have that 'choice'. that's really what it's all about 'choice'. problems start to arise when you have people who can no longer communicate, and can you assert 100% that this is what she/he would want. by all means life is important and we should cherish it, but i think in certain circumstances we've just got to say 'just kill me now'...'get it over with'. it's the same scenario as abortion, that right and wrong case. however, if we lose our 'choice' to choose if we have an abortion or not, or the choice to die when we want, then we lose the essence of our human selves. that choice should still be available, and when that choice is made some people will think it's the wrong one and some people will think it's the right one, but as long as the choice is there, i'm happy.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
nor do I think an abortion is for anyone but the child. I do not support abortion so that the mother can have a better life, I support it so that the child does not have a bad one.

what's 'a bad life'? i think that needs to be justified. i think almost any life if you're born in a developed country is a life 'worthy' of being good. it may not be 'great', it may not 'be the best', but no matter what, there is always someone else worse off. even if you live in the poverty stricken parts of america or england, you're still better off than the poor souls living in niger.

i do support abortion, i support it for the reason that we should have a choice. there's almost no way they can make it illegal, as it would revert back to when they used to perform abortions in dark alleys, with a pair of tongues and other various bacteria plagued instruments.

Originally posted by saint4God
Rather, we're making the decision on that child's fate before giving her/him a opportunity to decide for themselves. That's where I think we're committing the error.

i believe this to be a very, very strange comment to make. when in fact would a child be capable of saying 'yeah, i wish i'd never been born'. that's a phrase used, as we all do sometimes in moments of anger or frustration, but we never 'mean' it. however, if a child 'really' did mean it, and perhaps thought to himself, 'it would have been better if my mum got an abortion'...exactly what age is a child ready to make a decision like that. this then goes back to previous statements i've made about 'children' in church, the children of christian parents, who are taken to church before they can make any sort of rational decision about their future.

the lies we are told as children...santa, tooth fairy, don't watch too much tv or your eyes will go square, and many more. most lies adults tell us when we are young are to provide an 'illusion'. when you find out santa isn't real, most of the fun of christmas is gone, you no longer sneak downstairs and wait. or perhaps looking at the tags on christmas presents on christmas eve and seeing ones from santa already there...you just put two and two together. the same with the tooth fairy, don't tell you parents you lost a tooth, and your tooth will be eaten by tiny bacteria before you get 50p. so as a child, when you're being told all these little lies, why then would you take your christian parent's word for it, that christianity is true?

Originally posted by junglejake
But generally it's translated from the original source. Today movies are sent all across the world in that country's language. Do they first ship the movie from Hollywood to Paris, where it's translated to French, then to Germany where the French version is translated to German, then to Italy where the German version is translated to Italian, then to India where the Italian version is translated into Hindi, then to China where the Hindi version is translated to Chinese, then to Japan, where the Chinese version is translated to Japanese? Or do all the countries translate off of the original? We have Greek and Hebrew texts, and a funamental part of going to seminary is learning both languages. People translate from the original text, not from a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation.

nice on the outset, but completly wrong. the translation we have today does not come from the ancient languages it was originally written in. what is it...ancient hebrew, aramaic, then translated to greek/latin, the probably to old english, and finally to the present english language. that's a minimum of three translations (there could have been more). the problem isn't if these people translated correctly, the problem is that we have absolutly none of the 'original' documents to compare it to. sure we have some old versions, but nothing close to original. that's like translating the old shakespeare version of macbeth, changing it in to present english, getting rid of all copies and versions of the old english, and just having the 'new' version. what's the problem?...the problem is the new version is nothing like the 'original'.