It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I don't like Radical Christianity. ..

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
What I want to know is why christians of all flavors ignore so much of the bible, even the radicals. I know many radical christians who married non-virgin wifes yet the bible says they should have executed them. I mean to me it's all or nothing.. you follow the bible or you don't. The bible is god's will and the word of god or it's not. If you do not execute your non-virgin wife then you are not a christian. That is just one example.. I could list 100's of things completely ignored.




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplausibleDeniability

I would argue that a lot of Radical Christians do not uphold what they believe in...they allow themselves to be defined by hatred.

I hate gays. I hate Jews. I hate Muslims. I hate.

Few people ever truly live up to the teachings of Christ. Radical Christians least of all.

I mean really...how can you radically preach tolerance and love?

And the larger question...why do we still need a spirit in the sky to tells us to be nice to each other?????


Yea I see what you mean.. I was thinking the sort of guys who actually go out protesting against the gays & whatnot. But then again what about those crazy church sessions where they all start flapping about like distressed fish.. those arent really based on hatred, just getting closer to God or something along those lines.

Oh, also.. is that the general opinion towards the bible - very few people actually manage to follow it all, so its fine?

[edit on 083131p://f10Wednesday by Bluebelle]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Hi Better Makings----

You wrote: "Finally, I will conclude by saying that Christianity is potentially a good religion. Jesus had a lot of great things to say, and good morals to live by."

Then--how (and DO be PRECISE !!) do you explain the 'good Rebbe' arming his disciples with swords (Luke 22:42-53) on the hill (after all, they must have been sharp enough---it got him executed naked on a gibbet for armed sedition against Rome...) his little shall we say 'Temple tantrum' with the whips and the chords, and his calling that poor Lebanese Gentile 'a dog under the table looking for scraps' in Matthew chapter 15:

'And a SyroPhoenecian woman came to him, saying, Son of David, have mercy upon me !' and he said to her, "Lady the SON OF MAN (Aram. Bar-Enasha) was ONLY sent to SAVE (or INGATHER) the LOST SHEEP of the ELECT of the HOUSE of YISRO'EL !!! ANYWAY SINCE WHEN would it be RIGHT TO TAKE the BREAD out of the CHILDREN'S MOUTH AND THROW IT to the DOGS under the TABLE?'

Are these racist-zionist words anything to live by in the 21st century? Sent ONLY to the LOST SHEEP of the ELECT of the HOUSE of Yisro'el?

What about 99.999999% of the REST OF THE WORLD ?!!! Apparently the rest of us are not worth SAVING, at least according to THAT Rabbi !!! SHEEEESH!!!!!



[edit on 21-10-2009 by Sigismundus]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Reply to several:

The New Testament is my main Bible, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament is mostly symbolic, a preparation, and a reference.

Romans defends my views, so check it out, and let me know.

To those who say the Bible was written my men and not God, I agree but God influenced the men who wrote it. Also,

Christianity started before the Bible. There are Churches today that began before the Bible, and haven't changed much since, namely Eastern Christian Churches, like Greek, Ethiopian, Middle-Eastern, Indian, etc... (Catholicism is also similar.) I hate to say it, but they know better than the Bible about following Christianity. That's what the earliest Christians believed before the Bible was written/compiled/created.



Thank you all again.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


In Luke, his disciple slashed the ear of a soldier, and Jesus yelled at his own disciple, then healed the soldier. Jesus WAS a good example. Also, in Matthew, Jesus never actually calls her a dog, but uses it as symbolism in a brief parable, then heals her daughter as she had asked.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
What I want to know is why christians of all flavors ignore so much of the bible, even the radicals. I know many radical christians who married non-virgin wifes yet the bible says they should have executed them. I mean to me it's all or nothing.. you follow the bible or you don't. The bible is god's will and the word of god or it's not. If you do not execute your non-virgin wife then you are not a christian. That is just one example.. I could list 100's of things completely ignored.


Yes you see what many of us educated christians see. How many people have been easily persuaded to fall from their relationship with God and to believe what they are blindly told by the preachers and pastors of today! Like I mentioned in another thread people need to invest in learning how to use Exigesis (sp?) to make their interpretation of what the historical text says and what the bible says!

"If you do not execute your non-virgin wife then you are not a christian. "

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The scripture is taken out of context, its not referenced to the historical times, it is not taking in account who the specific audience was, and I can go on and on about why this is a false statement about christianity.

If you really want to understand the Bible take 3 Simple steps (They require work!) Observe the text not just the words but who is the author, when was it written, who was it written too, what the culture like and etc... (this will require lots of reading and searching!) This is also the most important step! take this step with an open mind like a scholar. I was once told:

"If you found an Ancient Egyptian document would you know what it said right off the bat? No... you wouldn't you would take it to a Egyptian scholar who spent their entire life devoted to the study of that culture and its people and history. From here you can be told what the document really means."

Then after you have observed you can begin to make and interpretation to what the context really says. (this applies to every historical document)

Finally you make your application... Which is different from your interpretation as your application pertains to what you take away from the context and meaning. your interpretation is what the actual document/scripture says at that time to that audience and following within the constraints of the observations!

Please note that If you have a simple verse that says one thing and then you run across a more complex verse that contradicts that verse. I am willing to bet my life that you made a mistake in your observations and interpretation phases...

Back on topic: I agree that many radicals have an adverse affect on any group. I was once screamed at by a street side preacher in downtown ATL at GSU and loudly called the "DEVIL!!!" because I simple walked up to the man and pulled him aside and said the following:

"Sir, I respect your will to want to save lives but you are doing more harm than good. People understand they are sinners and do not need you to point that out to them. If you would simply share the Gospel of Christ then you would get a better response. Is it not easier to catch flies with honey rather than vinegar? Maybe you should rethink your approach and try to help people rather than criticize them. Christ taught us to help our neighbors not to scream SINNER in their face. Now I am late to class..."

Upon turning my back he called me the Devil I think 8-9 times I turned and replied arrogant fool! Arrogant!

Guess what 3 months later he adopted my advice and he had a whole slew of people listening to what he had to say! *note* people at GSU and even the homeless ignored the hell out of the guy before he changed his technique!



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 


I was going to reply point by point, but after reading the already posted replies...I'll just say I agree with the counterpoints against the OP.

I'd just like to add, I am growing a bit tired of the term radical. Radical left, Radical right, Radical Christians, Radical Muslims....blah blah blah.

Most times, it is used incorrectly in the first place (like this post), and it is almost always used to discredit the people after the term radical.

In everything I do and believe, I am radical. Want to know why? Because I believe them to be correct. When I am presented with information that makes me see a better way, I change. Out with the old radical, in with the new.

What people usually mean when they say radical is, "I disagree with all so and sos but I want to seem like I am moderate so I am going to use the word radical".

Pick a side, and be on that side. Be radical about it. It's the only way to leave your mark on this planet.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings

I am a Christian. Radical Christians are giving all other Christians a bad name, because:

1. The world is billions of years old, at least. I believe in evolution, with God as the guiding hand creating the universe in an orderly fashion. Creationists to me are ridiculous. Look at the stars! You are looking millions of years back in time; isn't that proof enough? What about 60,000 year old cave paintings? How can the world be 6000 years old?

2. I don't think Jesus is the only way to heaven. I think good people go to heaven, and bad people go to hell (I also think some people linger on as ghosts). Could God be that cruel to send a good person to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus?


I am curious how can you be a christian if you dont believe the founding principal of christianity? Just a question IDK if you have answered it yet or not... ( I havent had the chance to read all the posts)




3. There is nothing wrong with gay people. I'm not sure if they should be allowed to get married, but that's a complicated topic. Marriage should be up to the church, not the state. Anyway, if a gay person is a good person, they should be able to get into heaven. That's all I'm saying.

There is a huge flaw in your logic right there. Can you earn your way to heaven? The answer is no if your really a christian... case and point: Why did Christ die for our sins if we can earn our way to heaven? What does it take to get into heaven? perfection... right? Have you ever made a mistake? I know you have so lets continue... Since your not perfect you cant get into heaven so where does that leave you? the answer is in Hell... This is what separates true christianity from everything else! Christ payed the price for our admittance into Heaven! Works or "being a good person" does not equal salvation. *side note* dont hate gays hate the life style I used to have many gay friends but I stopped alot of my nightlife partying so I dont see them anymore...



5. I don't believe there is any one "anti-Christ" because it doesn't say so in the Bible anywhere. An anti-Christ is someone against Christianity, which means billions of people today are the anti-Christ. I also don't believe in the end of the world. It might happen, but who cares? Do we have a choice?


It actually does under the correct observation of the texts and guided interpretations from the greek translation!



Finally, I will conclude by saying that Christianity is potentially a good religion. Jesus had a lot of great things to say, and good morals to live by. I'm sure thousands of years from now, even if Christianity ceases to exist, that Jesus will be quoted and read the way people quote & read Aristotle today, or some other philosopher-type person.

Thanks for your time.


You have much to learn about Christianity as do all of Us including myself. Christianity is based on the relationship to God through Christ. So by your personal beliefs and communication to God you will have salvation. Many people Call themselves Christian but have NO IDEA what it means to really be Christian. "From what you have posted" I do not believe that you understand Christianity or are a Christian. But that is not my choice or place to judge you and your relationship with God is how YOU choose it to be!



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings


I am a Christian. Radical Christians are giving all other Christians a bad name, because:

1. The world is billions of years old, at least. I believe in evolution, with God as the guiding hand creating the universe in an orderly fashion. Creationists to me are ridiculous. Look at the stars! You are looking millions of years back in time; isn't that proof enough? What about 60,000 year old cave paintings? How can the world be 6000 years old?




  1. radiometric dating is a farse
  2. If you truly are a "Christian" how do you get around the fact that in order for the theory of Evolution to be true do you get death before Adam and the fall?
  3. the speed of light is NOT a constant, even scientists claim the speed of light was exponentially greater in years past



2. I don't think Jesus is the only way to heaven. I think good people go to heaven, and bad people go to hell (I also think some people linger on as ghosts). Could God be that cruel to send a good person to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus?




  1. you then make Jesus and the Bible a liar
  2. you believe in works salvation
  3. If there were no punishment for unbelief then not only would God's mercy be impotent, God would not be absolute "just" and would then be a "respector of persons".



3. There is nothing wrong with gay people. I'm not sure if they should be allowed to get married, but that's a complicated topic. Marriage should be up to the church, not the state. Anyway, if a gay person is a good person, they should be able to get into heaven. That's all I'm saying.




  1. Salvation is not of works lest any man should boast
  2. sin is sin, homosexuality is just as much a sin as lying or stealing, we ALL are sinners, if the homosexual is saved by faith then God imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to their account, whether they be a homosexual or a thief.



4. I believe in many lesser gods & spirits, other supernatural beings, and outer-space aliens (who may be somehow related to humans). I don't worship them, but we have a friendship. Radical Christians would say I'm pagan, and am worshiping the devil if I make an offering to a lesser god / spirit / saint, or whatever.


Either:



  1. you are not a Christian or
  2. you think God was lying when he said there are no other Gods but Him



5. I don't believe there is any one "anti-Christ" because it doesn't say so in the Bible anywhere. An anti-Christ is someone against Christianity, which means billions of people today are the anti-Christ. I also don't believe in the end of the world. It might happen, but who cares? Do we have a choice?


Learn Greek, the Bible clearly states/discusses many "A/AN" antichrists and only one "THE" Antichrist which is yet to come in Daniel's 70th week.


Finally, I will conclude by saying that Christianity is potentially a good religion. Jesus had a lot of great things to say, and good morals to live by. I'm sure thousands of years from now, even if Christianity ceases to exist, that Jesus will be quoted and read the way people quote & read Aristotle today, or some other philosopher-type person.


Christianity is NOT 'potentially' a good religion, it is perfect, full of love, grace, forgiveness, meekness and humility. Anyone acting in the opposites of these traits are acting in a way contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, therefore anti-Christ, thus NOT Christianity.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImplausibleDeniability



What's not funny is when people who hear 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' in church on Sunday morning decide to sit on their front lawn holding a sign that says 'God Hates Fags' on Sunday afternoon.



Using the exception to define the rule is a logical fallacy: not to mention you are as well trying to use "Guilt by Association" and "Appeal to Emotion".

Try a new line of logic...



[edit on 22-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 



I'm talking about editing and translation throughout history. The very fact that there is little variance among the gospels is because of the editing process!

Translation doesn't equate to editing. Also, it's not possible that all the manuscripts have been edited. Some of the manuscripts that we use now to translate the Bible were only found within the last few years and are the oldest yet, dating back to the late first and early second centuries. If those had been edited, it would be evident.


There was an event in 325 called the Council of Nicea...it is a FASCINATING read if you have time.

Yes, Nicea. That is where the church got together and realized that the all believed that Jesus was God and that all others were heretics. The main purpose of meeting was to discuss Arianism. The canon wasn't discussed there. At any rate, the canon was unofficially accept at this time, minus a handful of books (2-3 John, Jude, and Hebrews).

As for the Gnostic gospels, the only one that was even in existence at this time was Thomas. The others weren't written until the late 300s or early 400s; some even later.

Wikipedia isn't a good source for Church History, in my opinion, because of the misinformation and myth that is out there.


I am not saying they were right, I'm not saying they were wrong. But what I am saying is that during this process much of what people believed to be Christianity was made 'heretical' at the decision of a group of men. Not God, but men. For me this throws the authority of today's Bible into question...it opens up the opportunity for interpretation and questioning.

Again, the Bible wasn't discussed at the First Council of Nicea. Yes, men made the final call on the decisions made in Nicea, but they were devoted men that didn't want to err against God. They took the work that they had before them very seriously and didn't play games.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 



What I want to know is why christians of all flavors ignore so much of the bible, even the radicals. I know many radical christians who married non-virgin wifes yet the bible says they should have executed them.

Christ came and became the law for us. In following Christ, we are following the law in the process. It's not that things are ignored.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 



Then--how (and DO be PRECISE !!) do you explain the 'good Rebbe' arming his disciples with swords (Luke 22:42-53) on the hill

Well, here is Luke 22:42-53.


...saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, and he said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Rise and pray that you may not enter into temptation."
Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus
While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness."


Nowhere in that passage does it say that Jesus gave them the swords. I would imagine it would've been normal to carry around a weapon back then for self defense.


his little shall we say 'Temple tantrum' with the whips and the chords

He was disrupting a sinful practice which was taking place in the holy Temple. "A passion for God's house burned within him."


and his calling that poor Lebanese Gentile 'a dog under the table looking for scraps' in Matthew chapter 15

Yes, it was frequent for Jews to insult Gentiles by calling them dogs, which were wild, homeless scavengers in ancient Palestine. But, Jesus didn't use that word when he called the woman a "dog". He used a more affectionate term, kynarion, which was used of household pets. In calling her this, he was testing her faith. Notice how in verse 28, Jesus healed the woman's daughter:

Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.



Are these racist-zionist words anything to live by in the 21st century? Sent ONLY to the LOST SHEEP of the ELECT of the HOUSE of Yisro'el?

If one reads the Bible, as a whole, they would understand that Messiah's mission, when he came, was to go only to Israel. He was Israel's messiah. Then the world would be blessed through them. But, Israel rejected her messiah. At that point, the Gospel message took a more universal stance.


What about 99.999999% of the REST OF THE WORLD ?!!! Apparently the rest of us are not worth SAVING, at least according to THAT Rabbi !!! SHEEEESH!!!!!

Wrong. Matthew 28.19:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

1. The world is billions of years old, at least. I believe in evolution, with God as the guiding hand creating the universe in an orderly fashion. Creationists to me are ridiculous. Look at the stars! You are looking millions of years back in time; isn't that proof enough? What about 60,000 year old cave paintings? How can the world be 6000 years old?


For the majority of people, either claim depends upon how much YOU believe either side of the debate. Its a personal choice. True, some choose ignorance vs. demonstrable facts, but one person's facts are another one's lies...


2. I don't think Jesus is the only way to heaven. I think good people go to heaven, and bad people go to hell (I also think some people linger on as ghosts). Could God be that cruel to send a good person to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus?


According to the scripture, God has punished good people for much less, hehe.... Thing is, Jesus' divinity was "decided" at the Council of Nicea...many of the same books written along with those "decided" to be included in the Bible, do not claim Jesus as the son of God. So, the idea of Jesus being the only way to heaven (when the Jews wrote of it first, and with Jesus himself being a Jew) is quite ridiculous....


3. There is nothing wrong with gay people. I'm not sure if they should be allowed to get married, but that's a complicated topic. Marriage should be up to the church, not the state. Anyway, if a gay person is a good person, they should be able to get into heaven. That's all I'm saying.


Like many topics, there is scripture to both support and deny this...depending on interpretation of the verses. (i.e. can read "love your fellow man" in many different ways, etc.). Of course, it's quite clear sodomy is a sin... Marriage is actually a STATE institution. It may have religious connotations, but it is a state status to encourage the production of more workers and consumers. One could argue that a homosexual marriage doesn't fit this criteria, but then the same could be said about a couple that chooses not to have children. It's a dicey issue, but one likely to be resolved within a couple of decades, in favor of gay marriage. Just as with a "normal" marriage, society will have to deal with the consequences of "bad" marriages...


4. I believe in many lesser gods & spirits, other supernatural beings, and outer-space aliens (who may be somehow related to humans). I don't worship them, but we have a friendship. Radical Christians would say I'm pagan, and am worshiping the devil if I make an offering to a lesser god / spirit / saint, or whatever.


It's funny, but Satan rarely comes up in the Bible. Most depictions of him are more from non-scripture writings, sermons, etc. What makes any god "lesser" than another? Amount of worshippers? Perceived power? Any god has just as much power as YOU ascribe to him/her...(so who REALLY has the power?....)



5. I don't believe there is any one "anti-Christ" because it doesn't say so in the Bible anywhere. An anti-Christ is someone against Christianity, which means billions of people today are the anti-Christ. I also don't believe in the end of the world. It might happen, but who cares? Do we have a choice?


The Bible "alludes" to an anti-Christ and a false prophet. Still though, most historians consider Revelation to describe a specific moment in Jewish history, NOT the end times... It's easy to see how the world of today (or even decades ago) could be made to fit the "end times" scenario, but it's just how you look at it....(in my opinion)...



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Hi Bettermakings

Are you serious? You cannot see the zionist racism being blatatly cast into the teeth of a SyroPhoenecian (gentile)? The term 'dogs' is used several dozen times in the dead sea scrolls to refer to goyim - gentiles ('idolotrous goyim dogs and other unclean things...')

And these anti-gentile pro-zionist racist nasties reflected the common language of the time, in documents that were STILL being copied (BCE 250 to 68CE) out while R Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (BCE 12 to 36 CE) was still living (the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Caves 1-11 were 'sealed' as a sort of time-capsule in June of 68 CE during the 1st Failed Jewish War agianst Rome 66-72CE) :

The context is clear: R. Yehoshua is up in 'gentile land' (in Syrop Phoenicia, in the area above the Galilee, Heb. ha-gilgal-hagoyim, i.e. 'circle of gentiles' from whence numerous armed seditionists sprang, e.g. Judah the galilean &tc.) examining the 'northern border of his so-called Kingdom of David' which extended to 'the River Euphrates, which extends into Lebanon---and a gentile goy-dog-woman comes to him for help only to be told, and in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS : 'the Son of Man was O-N-L-Y (Matthew uses the Gk. EUTHEOS, meaning 'nobody but') sent to the LOST SHEEP OF THE ELECT OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL' then adds insult to injury by telling her she's some kind of bottom feeder under the table looking for scraps from the 'children's bread' (i.e. the elect of the sons of the house of Israel, scattered amongst the gentiles, i.e. the diaspora Jews who were to be 're-gathered' in the Last Days by the Messiah - see Trito-Isaiah chapter 61 to chapter 66)

Read it again, in English if that's all you can read:

"Lady the SON OF MAN (Aram. Bar-Enasha) was ONLY sent to SAVE (or INGATHER) the LOST SHEEP of the ELECT of the HOUSE of YISRO'EL !!! ANYWAY SINCE WHEN would it be RIGHT TO TAKE the BREAD out of the CHILDREN'S MOUTH AND THROW IT to the DOGS under the TABLE?'

This kind of pure-zionist-racism is what makes the earliest Nazorian Christianities so heinously UNATTRACTIVE to nonMessianic Jews---and why Saul of tarsus (aka Paul) had to go WAY OUT OF HIS WAY to SOFTEN THE ZIONIST RACISM of 'Iesous' and make the message more UNIVERSAL--but this Saul of course never actually, physically met this Iesous seditionist in the flesh---but only in dreams and visions, and moreoever hated the 'So-Called Pillars of the Church', James and Peter who DID know him intimately----read Galatians chapter 2 a couple dozen times in English to get a flavour for his rejection of their authority...

But even Saul said zionist nasties like 'to the Jew First of course, but also to the Greek (i.e. the gentile non Jew)... so even HE had trouble excising the zionist-racism from the earliest messaging....

This is why Christianity (ultimately) is so hated in the world. For those who can read the earliest surviving text copies and compare the kind of language with the surviving Dead Sea Scroll material, zionist racism and xenophobic gentile-hatred lay at the core of the message which goes back to their crucified armed seditionist who spearheaded all the hatred---no matter how HARD the Greek Nicene Council Approved 'canonical' Gospels (written in Greek between 75CE and 95CE) try to cover it up and make it palatable to gentiles...

It JUST WON'T WASH OFF !!



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Hey Octo--

Maybe you did not get the set-up pericope in Luke about the Swords?

READ Luke 22: 35 - 22:37 for 'Iesous' arming his followers with REAL SWORDS part..even worse in the Koine Greek (at any rate, it got him strung up naked on a gibbet fairly quickly by Rome)

QUOTE

22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, or a beggars bag, or sandals did you lack for any thing at all? And they said to him, [we lacked] nothing, Rebbe.

36 Then said he unto them all, ' But now I say to you: he who has a purse, let him take it, and he who has a beggar bag who does NOT have his own SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS OUTER GARMENT (on a cold night, too !!) AND GO OUT IMMEDIIATELY NOW AND PURCHASE ONE !!

Then the text adds:

Luke 22: 37 Amen, Amen I say to you: everything written about the Son of Man must come to pass to the very last letter. (the Greek texts here are gramattically awkward, but the Aramaic underlay is more clear, syntactically)

to which the author adds:

Even as it was written 'he was counted among the sinners [in his burial] , and the rich-ones in his death'

So maybe you need to go back to your 'bible' and read it a little more carefully? The fact that Matthew and Mark and John leave out this arming scene shows how POLITICALLY-DANGEROUS and EMBARRASSING the whole arming-with-swords episode must have been to an earliest Nazorene churches -- who OBVIOIUSLY had to TRY and cover up all this sword-weilding seditionist rebellion business as best they could --

Remember that the Greek Canonical Gospel material we read today in the mangled handwritten text copies we possess from so many years after the events they purport to relate was not written down until LONG AFTER the JEWISH WAR agains Rome was LOST (and yet all 4 canonical gospels speak of cutting off/lobbing off the ear of the slave of the high priest---so swords WERE involved---unless you picture the disciples using BUTTER KNIVES left over from the Last Supper!!)...

Why don't you ask your pastor a simple question: If 'Jeeezuzz' was a Prince of Peace and a nice Rabbi, then WHY DID HE ARM HIS DISCIPLES WITH SWORDS on the NIGHT OF HIS ARREST and get CRUCIFIED NAKED for it?



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


According to the scripture, God has punished good people for much less, hehe.... Thing is, Jesus' divinity was "decided" at the Council of Nicea...many of the same books written along with those "decided" to be included in the Bible, do not claim Jesus as the son of God. So, the idea of Jesus being the only way to heaven (when the Jews wrote of it first, and with Jesus himself being a Jew) is quite ridiculous....


Hmm, the way you have "decided" in parenthesizes above begs the question if you're attempting to claim it was never taught, believed, preached, or mentioned prior to the council of Nicaea. What was "decided" was the church's OFFICIAL position. There was great debate on this issue, between the Christians in Greece and Antioch and the Gnostics from Egypt. This debate began to arise on the scene 50 years or so after the death of John, the last apostle, and reached a fevered pitch prior to the Council.

Don't make it seem like the Council of Nicaea pulled the doctrine out of mid-air after a late night drinking binge. That's a straw man argument.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
"A day with the Lord is like a thousand years"

...Or it can also be LIKE a billion years.. You guys need to read and analyze better


God's abode may be twilighting every thousand years.. Or a more spectacular explanation: God's abode may be a black hole....

Near a black hole, the time dilation can be so intense that a factor of billions can be easily reached... 1 day to a billion years? Not a far-fetched reality...



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



What was "decided" was the church's OFFICIAL position.


I think I heard it described (rightly, IMO), that the Council took an official position AGAINST the heresies that were creeping up all over.

It was similar to Jude 3: (emphasis mine)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

and
2 Pet. 2:1:
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 



I know many radical christians who married non-virgin wifes yet the bible says they should have executed them.


This simply is not true. The Old Testament law was given to the Jews, not to Christians.

The Jews weren't promised anything more than land. There was no threat of eternal punishment OR eternal life in the OT law.

There are two covenants in the Bible: One for the Jews and one for the Church.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join