Jesus said;- You are for me or against me

a reply to: sine.nomine
Come on- you know that's not what we mean by "the Bible". That's just another of those "let's write something to give ourselves an excuse not to believe in the gospel" documents. Yes, of course people who trust in themselves are going to write "it's safe to trust in yourselves".
But it isn't Biblical teaching. It is the opposite of Biblical teaching. It is the decision that Adam and Eve made when they decided to trust in their own judgement instead of trusting in God's judgement.

P.S. Don't quote "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" at me either, for the same reason.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Whatever. Read about the Gospel of Thomas. I already told you my beliefs and background. Scholars date the text from 60-140 A.D. and almost half of the sayings in it mirror canonical gospels. It was found in 1945, so why would it be in a traditional bible?

a reply to: sine.nomine
It was never incorporated into the traditional Bibles, partly because it did not fit. It is not Biblical teaching. You are believing in it because you want to believe in it, and it was written with the same motivation. You cannot let go the idea of "trusting in yourself". That inability to let go is what defines your lack of trust.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Again, it was discovered in 1945. And I don't have a lack of trust. Or an inability to let go. You dont know me... You're not even reading my posts anymore. Choose what you want, I guess. This conversation has hit a loop.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
...
It was never incorporated into the traditional Bibles, partly because it did not fit.

Lol Christianity in one sentence. It doesn't fit? Embrace ignorance.

a reply to: Peeple
It's only the reverse of what you're doing yourself. The Biblical teaching doesn't fit your world-view, so you're not going to accept it. By your own logic, that's "Ignorance".

What we're doing is illustrating the point of this thread, that there is a choice which has to be made, and trying to combine the "yes" and the "no" into one shapeless conglomerate simply does not work. One or the other.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't accept it because I embarked on a search for the truth, that's the opposite.
I don't ignore the bible I read it with a bag of salt. Because there's no reason to believe those people had answers to the big mystery of life, the universe and everything.

I mean if you want to accept the bible as truth at least try to be consisent. Give your daughter to a stranger to have her raped, own a few slaves, have multiple wives.
If you don't want to do that because it's OT at least be vegan and communist. That's the NT.

a reply to: Peeple
As I said; from your viewpoint, it doesn't fit. QED.

I should have to refer you to my other threads to show how you're misrepresenting the Bible. It would be off-topic here.

Bible thread Index
Firstly, you need the "God's law" series.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Always studious.
Thanks for sharing.
S&F

a reply to: DISRAELI

Lol "you're off-topic" is your answer to everything?
Fine. For the record, I am not against what they write about that fictional character they don't even know the real name of, I'm clearly against Christianity.

Is that on topic enough, you want to discuss that?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Though Jesus was for the world Jesus message was not for the world, only for those who accepted it. Jesus never pushed a theocracy, christianity is personal

The end result of "the great commission" can lead to nothing but a theocracy.

a reply to: Peeple
"Off-topic" is my standard answer to trolling, because I'm aware that de-railing is a standard trolling tactic.

The fact that you are against Christianity is on-topic to the extent that it illustrates the point of the thread, that one is "either for or against".

If you want to start putting forward reasons why people should be against Christianity, I will recognise that as trolling (as will everybody else) and leave it alone.

However, some of the topics you may want to bring up will be covered already in existing threads (I know the "daughters" issue is), and I'd be willing to direct you to them.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Raggedyman

Though Jesus was for the world Jesus message was not for the world, only for those who accepted it. Jesus never pushed a theocracy, christianity is personal

The end result of "the great commission" can lead to nothing but a theocracy.

The great commission, go out and share the gospel, how is that a guarantee to a theocracy. I don’t think you can do simple arithmetic

a reply to: DISRAELI

So here is a case that may challenge your views of the Mark 9 passage:



I don't know much about Kenneth Copeland except that Mainstream Christians would consider his Prosperity Gospel to be a false gospel. Nevertheless, there he is using the name of Jesus.

Is he gathering or scattering?

a reply to: pthena
I'm not going to judge individual people, but I'm on record as disapproving of the "Prosperity gospel".
See the first four posts of the attached thread;
Peace restored; Blessing and prosperity

I suppose the question will be whether any of the real Jesus gets taught in the middle of the misleading stuff.


P.S. Now that I've seen the video, I'm not convinced that he's doing what the man in the Mark quotation was doing. There's nothing there about releasing people from what is troubling their minds and their relationship with God. But he's not promoting hostility to Jesus either, which was the point of the "scattering" comment. This may be a case of 1 Corinthians ch3 v12, the teacher whose work will be tested by fire.

P.P.S. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that Jesus is requiring the sight of active hostility before he pronounces someone "against". It's given a narrow definition.

Just like Noah with his ark and the flood, the warning was out there for 120 years as Noah was preaching about the coming flood and built the Ark.

You either boarded the ark or you didn't, one coarse of action ensured your survival, the other caused you to die by being drowned.

Matthew 24: 36-39

36 “But of that [exact] day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son [in His humanity], but the Father alone. 37 For the coming of the Son of Man (the Messiah) will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the [very] day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know or understand until the flood came and swept them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be [unexpected judgment].

Until God closed the Ark door, there was a chance for people to board the Ark, once it was closed, the choice was no longer an option.
A similar thing will happen in our epoch, basically when Jesus finally judges people individually in the future during the Great Tribulation, how far away it is, no human knows.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was thinking more about the tensions between sectarianism and ecumenism. The Mark picture of the small group of disciples catching someone else talking and acting like them.

Consider the irony of a very sectarian group singing this song. It was quite popular in the U.S. in the late 60s and early 70s.

There's nothing there about releasing people from what is troubling their minds and their relationship with God.

Isn't he actually attempting that; releasing people's concerns about Covid-19?

I actually used that Copeland clip as an example of what some people sound and act like when they attempt to literally cast demons out of someone. It is an exertion of power by one person over another and using the name of Jesus as a focus. There isn't much good that comes from that, in my experience and opinion.

I was writing a story about the time that was done to me, but probably won't post it.

highlights anyway:

Scene: High School library, practically empty because there was an assembly happening that neither I nor the Sister cared to attend.

Characters:
1) The Sister. I don't remember her name, but she is the younger sister of one of my class mates. Currently (at the time that is, probably not now) a member of a pseudo-Christian cult highly involved in occult practices.

2) Myself. Former member of that same cult.

I entered the library and saw only one other student there, so I took a seat at the same table with the Sister. She looked around nervously. "I'm not supposed to talk to you."

After looking around the library myself, I replied "I won't tell if you don't." (great! Here I am telling. Shame on me!)

We agreed that the subject of why I left the cult was probably off limits, so we eventually got around to why I joined in the first place.

"Well, I used to have the habit of lying in bed on my back at night to pray." I explained. "I could sense that my prayers went out to someone. One night ... It was as if an invisible dome shaped force field formed over me. My prayers just bounced back ... didn't go anywhere ... just stopped. That alarmed me.

"I had a feeling that Mr G____ had something to do with it," I continued, "So I went to his house the next day to ask him what he had to offer."

"Oh Yeah!" the Sister exclaimed. "I remember that!"

"... ... ... What?"

"Yeah. The Prophet G____ called a special meeting that night."

"... ... ... What?"

"There were 10 or 12 of us who showed up. We got in a circle holding hands and prayed about you."

"... um ... What did you all say exactly?"

"I don't remember. But Prophet G____ did most of it."
-----------------------
There were many times during my three weeks in the cult in which I observed Mr. G____'s words, manners and motions. I can easily guess the hand motions and words used that night. And all while using the name of Jesus.

------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably all I really want to say about that. Plus for me: I won't have to start my own thread and get asked difficult questions.

originally posted by: pthena
I was thinking more about the tensions between sectarianism and ecumenism. The Mark picture of the small group of disciples catching someone else talking and acting like them.

My take on that issue comes in the multi-post thread All one in Christ Jesus. (I never quite got to the stage of having one extant thread for any question that might come up, but I've been working on it).

If you want to read one of my own stories, that one includes an account of my brief stint as chairman of Penge Council of Churches.

I actually used that Copeland clip as an example of what some people sound and act like when they attempt to literally cast demons out of someone. It is an exertion of power by one person over another and using the name of Jesus as a focus. There isn't much good that comes from that, in my experience and opinion.

All I can say is that I felt no conviction that he had the authority he was attempting to exercise. As though he was using the right words taught by his understanding of scripture, rather than being prompted by the Holy Spirit into action. It reminded me of those occasions when I have heard people "claiming a promise" in prayer, as though "we claim" were a legalistic way of twisting God's arm.

Perhaps we should get away from the specific issue of exorcism, and say- the difference between the Pharisee and the man in the second quotation is that the Pharisee is hostile to what Jesus is doing, and the second man is cooperating with what Jesus is doing.

a reply to: DISRAELI
If you are not with Christ then you are the Anti Christ.

You cannot be 'for' Christ!!!

Christ is the manifestation of God.....Christ is the ever present appearance.

But man is full of himself.......stories about himself in time and space fill his being.

One must be empty of stories, empty of judgement......and just be silent.

a reply to: DISRAELI

There are many references to duality in the bible. Starting with the Tree of the knowledge good and evil. Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until they gained this knowledge. The second verse you quoted is simply a double negative sentence which usually turns the thought into a positive one.
For the guy quoting the gospel of Thomas, consider this verse.

nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21 KJV
I realize that other translations say "in your midst"

However; if the KJV has merit, what would be the Kingdom of God/Heaven be like? God cannot coexist with evil, or, if thought of as heaven/hell as a duality pair, then the Kingdom would be free of evil, or the resolution of duality called non-duality. In this experiential state, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, would be something like non judgmental awareness.
Another example of duality is when Jesus was speaking in Revelation about the seven churches. "You are neither hot nor cold, so I spit you out. Jesus said he was one with the father and he prayed that we would also be one with the father and himself.

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27
Additionally; Satan and all the principalities were defeated on the cross. If so, why are we constantantly reminded that he is prowling around ready t devour us? I don't wannt to get into Mystery Babylon, but why was the temple destroyed and the viel ripped in two? Could it be that Churchianty vs finding the kingdom within, makes te difference between the wide path and the narrow gate? Has organized religion beome just another institution of man; and as such, self perpetrated through the centuries, reognizing their authority above all else? Someimes, I wonder.

I have heard atheist use this verse to "prove" the "error" in the bible to support their view that revelation already occured and the bible was a fairy tale. But, suppose some of the disciples saw the Kingdom 2,000 years ago.
If someone actually believed there was no evil on this Earth and experienced such a state, surely they would be mocked and taken advantage of by the "world'. But; there are verses explaining that context as well. The least of which is, the meek shall inherit the Earth as well as gather your treasures in heaven. If someone wants your coat, give it to them, turn the other cheek, etc. Job's sin was not being able to forgive his friends. If we are non judgmental and stop comparing ourselves to others, then it's difficult to experience righteous indignation.

For the Buddists in the group, the opposing viewpoints may be closer than we realize. Non-Duality has its origins in the Vedic traditions dating back 5,000 years. Additionally, monism or "all is one" is talked about in the bible. Meditating? How about "Be still and know God"



It's also interesting that Jesus spoke about the Pharisees and the Saducees, but not about the Essene. They lived near Qumran, where we found a few scrolls. Josephus clearly mentions the Essenes. They were a ascetic Jewish sect, who took care of the poor and healed the sick. Also, the desposyni were the family of Jesus and some of the faithful followed them instead of the Romans. James the Just, brother of Christ was an early Christian leader.

As far as your signature, "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?" - Tony Hancock; King John didn't care about the Magna Carta. He was trying to appease his Barons after he lost most of the lands acquired before his reign. This is why his name was Lack-land, or John Lackland.