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.

 

WANTED 1 intelligent educated Christian to answer some questions on faith

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Interesting...

Could you give me the passage so i don't have to read all three chapters?

Though i'll probably end up reading them all anyways, just for fun



I'd read all 3 anyways, it's a hilarious letter. Paul is upset that the Galatians have bowed the knee to the demands of the Judaizers who said the Christians needed to become Jews first, (circumcision), then Christians. Paul is explaining that it's just about Jesus, that Jesus + anything is a false doctrine.

My favorite verse is where Paul says that if these Judaizers are claiming that circumcision makes them more holy then they should cut the entire thing off and be really holy.


Why would they label the book 1 peter, if it was paul writing?

And i actually didn't find anything you just said in those chapters. I'll look again though





posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


His aramaic name was Yeshuah, meaning "God saves". Greek is a gender based language like spanish, so a male name can't end with an A. So his name was changed to Iesous in Greek with an S at the end denoting importance. If you read an old fashioned Bible, you will notice similar alteration in the names of the prophets such as Esaias. Later J got thrown into Biblical language by the Anglo Saxons where there were Y sounds before, and thus Yudea became Judea and YHWH became JHVH.
edit on 16-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Alright so, Peter says nothing about Paul, though i did find what you were talking about in Galatians.

What i'd like to see is the verse where you said paul traveled with him for 3 years...

If you look here, he says he was not taught by any man, but he learned through "divine revelation"



11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


So please if you don't mind find me this passage where he says he traveled with Jesus?




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


His aramaic name was Yeshuah, meaning "God saves". Greek is a gender based language like spanish, so a male name can't end with an A. So his name was changed to Iesous in Greek with an S at the end denoting importance. If you read an old fashioned Bible, you will notice similar alteration in the names of the prophets such as Esaias. Later J got thrown into Biblical language by the Anglo Saxons where there were Y sounds before, and thus Yudea became Judea and YHWH became JHVH.
edit on 16-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)




Thank you for explaining this for some readers who may not have been aware of this, but actually believed his name was Jesus and all the other character names were authentic.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Huh? I never discussed 1 Peter, I'm talking about the book of Galatians.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I have a question:

Is there only one God...or is the devil now a God?
If there's only one God, he must be the God of good and evil correct?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
 



Yes i know he had a brief encounter with him.


You're forgetting in Galatians Paul said he learned directly from the Lord Jesus for 3 years while he was in Arabia. He also says he went to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles to see if he had been teaching/preaching in vain a different gospel than they were. And in 2 Peter, Peter says Paul's teaching, while hard to be understood, is on par with the other scriptures, as well as calling Paul a "beloved brother" in Christ.


So this statement at the bottom was a mistake, or did you forget you said that?




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 





2Peter 3:16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here, Peter is making an obvious reference to Paul and imo a prophetic reference to Anselm of Canterbury, Luther, and Calvin who liked to separate specific quotations of Paul from the gospels and the big picture



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Akragon
 





2Peter 3:16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here, Peter is making an obvious reference to Paul and imo a prophetic reference to Anselm of Canterbury, Luther, and Calvin who liked to separate specific quotations of Paul from the gospels and the big picture


thank you... i must have missed that somehow.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Alright so, Peter says nothing about Paul, though i did find what you were talking about in Galatians.

What i'd like to see is the verse where you said paul traveled with him for 3 years...

If you look here, he says he was not taught by any man, but he learned through "divine revelation"



11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


So please if you don't mind find me this passage where he says he traveled with Jesus?



Didn't say Paul traveled with Jesus. Paul said he received his revelations directly from Jesus the 3 years he was in Arabia. He said somewhere else, I don't recall the exact location, that he went to the same mountains Elijah and Moses met with the Lord at.

Here is the verse Paul says those Judaizers should emasculate themselves:


12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!


That's in Galatians 5. One of my favorite verses.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I have a question:

Is there only one God...or is the devil now a God?
If there's only one God, he must be the God of good and evil correct?

This is dualistic Gnostic thought. Evil is sin and the wages of sin is death. Death is unnatural and an impersonal tool that the devil makes use of to separate us from God and destroy us. That is what evil is, separation and we were not subjected to its influence until the fall. You could consider the devil a deity, I think the ancient humans worshipped fallen angels, but next to God there is no comparison. That is why there is one God and why he has triumphed over sin, death, and the devil: they are not equal.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



So this statement at the bottom was a mistake, or did you forget you said that?


No, I went from detailing what Paul said in Galatians about where he got his doctrine from to the book of 2 Peter where Peter says Paul's gospel is true, even though it's hard for people to grasp. It's 2 Peter 3:15-16.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Alright so, Peter says nothing about Paul, though i did find what you were talking about in Galatians.

What i'd like to see is the verse where you said paul traveled with him for 3 years...

If you look here, he says he was not taught by any man, but he learned through "divine revelation"



11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


So please if you don't mind find me this passage where he says he traveled with Jesus?



Didn't say Paul traveled with Jesus. Paul said he received his revelations directly from Jesus the 3 years he was in Arabia. He said somewhere else, I don't recall the exact location, that he went to the same mountains Elijah and Moses met with the Lord at.

Here is the verse Paul says those Judaizers should emasculate themselves:


12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!


That's in Galatians 5. One of my favorite verses.


Yes this is what i mean... Through "divine revelation" but he actually didn't speak with Jesus in person. This leaves the gate open for speculation.

Though i admit most of what he taught was in line with Christ's teachings, though slightly crude in some cases, clearly he had the idea right.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
 



So this statement at the bottom was a mistake, or did you forget you said that?


No, I went from detailing what Paul said in Galatians about where he got his doctrine from to the book of 2 Peter where Peter says Paul's gospel is true, even though it's hard for people to grasp. It's 2 Peter 3:15-16.


Yes i found what you're talking about.

The funny thing is its not hard to understand. It makes me wonder why people get the messages so wrong in many cases.

Likely the result of getting the bible preached to you instead of reading for themselves.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Yes this is what i mean... Through "divine revelation" but he actually didn't speak with Jesus in person. This leaves the gate open for speculation.

Though i admit most of what he taught was in line with Christ's teachings, though slightly crude in some cases, clearly he had the idea right.


"Divine Revelation" is words directly from the Lord. The same divine revelation John received on the isle of Patmos for the book of Revelation. In that book John is told to write 7 letters for Jesus to the churches in Turkey/Asia minor.

The Greek word for "revelation" is the same word we get "Apocalypse" from. It means revealing something that was previously hidden. And the word "divine" preceding it means it didn't come from man or an angel, but the Lord Himself.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



The funny thing is its not hard to understand.


No, it's not hard for US to understand, Peter was an apostle to the Jews and was writing to the Jews. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone apart from the Law was very difficult for them to grasp and understand, even though it was correct.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

. But its true, most (once again MOST not ALL) serious religious types average around 110 for IQ and very few (proportionately)have degrees or higher education.

Ma dai! Come to New Zealand, and you'll see that universities are full of Christians. (I have higher education 'up the wazoo' to use an American... )
Vicky



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forevever
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


religious discussions bring much insanity - I can't even read through this entire thread

I think this is a worth read though to start you on "why" the bible contradicts itself

www.xeeatwelve.com...

its just someones opinion I assume, I haven't looked very deeply into it yet, but it made a lot of sense to me

I found God about 10 days ago after being agnostic for 25 years, or I should say he found me - if I tell you how you'd think I'm insane - my son said if I look for signs I'll find them - but I wasn't looking


Praise the Lord that you found God!



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by kallisti36
 



6) do you believe Jesus was God incarnate? physically rose to heaven?

Yes, it is essential to the faith that Christ was in God and therefor was God otherwise, he was a blasphemer. He claimed to forgive sins, conquered death, and accepted worship. If he was not God incarnate, that makes him a lesser deity and denies the oneness of God. With non-trinitarianism, what you are left with is three gods.


7)what do you believe/been taught happens to non christians when they die? is it automatic hell?

Hell is a blanket translation of Sheol, Hades, Gehennah, and Tartarus. Sheol and Hades are the Greek and Hebrew words for the shadowy abode of death, it's not very well elaborated on in the OT and some think it is non-existence. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man given by Yeshuah denotes consciousness in these places, so I believe that even before the harrowing of hades the dead still existed. Gehenna was a flaming garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in Yeshuah's time and was a common metaphor for the wrath of God. This is where the fire and worm imagery comes from. Tartarus was a dark prison (the pit) for the fallen angels of Genesis 6 alone; no humans. This blanket translation is an enduring Roman Catholic corruption that originates in Jerome's Vulgate in which he translated all the above terms as infernus.

Now concerning the state of the non-Christian dead, we must understand death and the cause of it. Death came about from the original sin of Adam. The Orthodox see sin as a sickness or an injury instead of a parking ticket. By consciously sinning, Adam adopted the proclivity for sin into our nature, we aren't guilty of his sin, we just inherit his sinful nature. When God said to Adam and Eve "on the day you eat of the tree, you shall die", he was stating a fact just as he was later when he declared "from dust you came and to dust you shall return". God did not say "Eat from the tree and I will kill you". It was more akin to a father telling his child not to touch the hot pan of cookies "or you will get burned". Did the Father burn the child, or did the child burn himself? Anyways, so the rest of the OT is God trying save the world from sin and death by establishing a people righteous enough to give birth to the messiah (the Israelites). Why couldn't he just do it? Firstly, we must consent to be healed, everyone healed by Yeshuah asked for it or was asked by him. Secondly, the Logos had to take on human flesh to redeem it, so he had to be born by a human mother. After centuries of struggle, captivity, chastisement, and failures, the Jews produced a woman righteous enough under the law to bear the eternal word of God and like the burning bush, not be consumed. This was the Theotokos, the virgin Mary. When Christ died for our sins, not as a "substitute for the punishment we deserve", he was acting as a scapegoat. This was a ritual performed by the Jews in which they placed the sins of the community on a goat and destroyed it and with it, their sin. Christ took on the sin of all those born and yet to be born in a metaphysical event of cosmic proportions and died. Sin lead to death, the wages of sin are death and all those before Christ went down into Sheol. When Christ died, the Logos, the author of life entered death which could not hold him. This is referred to as the harrowing of hades in which Christ entered the realm of the dead and bestowed life on the dead. At the resurrection he returned to show that matter could be redeemed because he returned in the flesh and blood as we all will at the final resurrection and judgment. You must ask to be healed, so if you do not ask you will not receive, therefor if you do not accept the sacrifice of Christ, you will die. Beyond that is a mystery to us. Christ harrowed sheol once before, perhaps he goes to the dead still. There will be a judgment at the end, however, and this is where the traditional understanding of hell comes in. To be in the presence of the Father of all and to be condemned by your own conscience is agony, estrangement from your father on a cosmic scale, and you can't escape his presence. In the end, God's heavenly flame either envelops you in love and life and does not consume or you will be consumed in shame and contempt. You would be estranged and cut off from those who love their Father and you would never be able to escape that. That is hell, but it isn't until the apocalypse.


8)what do you think about deities from before Jesus having so many similarities? E.g Mithrantis born same day, virgin birth, resurection etc etc

Most of that stuff is bs. Mithra was born out of a rock, Christmas only has a 1/365 chance of being Yeshuah's birthday, Mithra wasn't crucified or resurrected either. Regardless, from what I noticed of all resurrection stories not involving Christ, they focus on the personal glorification of that deity rather than a great sacrifice that saved the entirety of mankind. Same thing with the virgin birth (which I can't find elsewhere without significant stretching and leaps in logic), anything else lacks the weight of the Word of God taking on human flesh from the culmination of mosaic law so that mankind might be saved from death and sin. Another thing to point out is that similarities do not equal plagarism.


9)would it affect your faith if it was found that jesus did marry, have children etc etc

Of course it would. Any Christian who says otherwise doesn't understand their own faith or just doesn't want you to think they're unreasonable. To make Yeshuah human would make him just another philosopher. If that is the case, we are still under the curse and the world keeps getting worse with no hope of a second coming. That being said, would I accept such information? Probably not, do you know how many times they *supposedly* found his tomb or his bones? It's always a load of crap that gets hyped up for a month. James Cameron will do a dishonest documentary on it and then people will call the claim out and it crumbles under scrutiny. The gnostic groups that have myths like these are always incredibly removed from Jerusalem. Why did Yeshuah always go to France, India, or Japan in these stories? Because there have been Christians in Jerusalem for 2,000 years and might have noticed if Yeshuah left an ancestral tomb or was making babies.


10)how important is it to your faith that Jesus even existed at all?

Very important. I mean if I discovered it was all a lie I wouldn't be a Christian, however I would always see what Yeshuah reportedly said as truth. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), forget all internal arguments on his existence and read it, it permeates truth on a purely metaphysical level. It was after I discovered that that I sought Him out and found that there is significant evidence that he existed.

Absolutely brilliant, Kallisti36! (I was going to give my answers, which would have been the same as yours, but there's no need! You have expressed it all so well, that my answers would be redundant.
I'm Protestant, but your answers are making me look seriously into the Orthodox faith!
Vicky



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Im an Aussie not American *represses the urge to make sheep jokes*

Aussies use the American language. That's a fact. I just think it's sad that you don't realise this site has people on it who are not American, and will go huh? at Americanisms, and perhaps even, being non-native speakers will be seriously confused.
Using 'dumb' to mean stupid is offensive to people with disablilties.
English usage blog


Originally posted by IkNOwSTuffVoted on in fact and normally a close vote, more than 3/4 of the works about jesus were destroyed. Its the sort of thing an intelligent or even curious non blind faith follower might be keen to learn more about.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, that is not true...


Originally posted by IkNOwSTuffBillions is a slight exaggeration I think but yes there are alot and a very vocal group of them are in the US but never having been to the States myself I cant confirm that.
I dont understand the monolithic reference

I meant that there isn't any one 'Christianity'. On this thread alone, there are at least two evangelical Protestants, an Orthodox believer and a Gnostic... you praise his intelligence, and further show your bias by insisting he can't possibly be a Christian. Fair enough, he may not be - but in my opinion, Kallisti36 has shown him/herself much more intelligent than our Gnostic friend. However my point is, that Jesus would have different things to say about different types of Christianity.



Originally posted by IkNOwSTuffBut out of morbid curiosity I need to ask, what could you possibly think my motives are?

What we called in sf circles, an ego-boost!
Also a bit of Aussie stirring! Thanks by the way for the star, much appreciated.
Vicky



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join