Christians... riddle me this!

reply to post by adjensen


How can you trust the word of man? If it is not in the bible then it is not worth listening to... unless it fits the status quo. That sums up your statement in a nutshell.

Open your eyes. If the glove fits the hand...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Lazarus and the rich man were real people, one in Sheol/Hades and one in Abraham's bosom/Paradise.

Can you give evidence that you are even capable of comprehending anything metaphorically?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

How can you trust the word of man? If it is not in the bible then it is not worth listening to... unless it fits the status quo. That sums up your statement in a nutshell.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you questioning my statement regarding the authenticity of the Gospel of Nicodemus?

reply to post by adjensen


Basically yes, the gospel of Nicodemus wasn't written until 2 centuries after the crucifixion and was written by many different authors.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Basically yes, the gospel of Nicodemus wasn't written until 2 centuries after the crucifixion and was written by many different authors.

Which is why I said that it was something to be considered from a historical standpoint, rather than thinking it to be actual doctrine.

Sorry, maybe I'm being thick tonight, but I don't understand what you meant by your first statement.

reply to post by adjensen


Maybe you are just being thick, who knows?

What I'm saying is that acts of pilate were not written until 2 centuries after the crucifixion and was written by many different men, so how can you take that at face value with how corrupt and deceitful man is? I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Lazarus and the rich man were real people, one in Sheol/Hades and one in Abraham's bosom/Paradise.

Can you give evidence that you are even capable of comprehending anything metaphorically?

Sure.. "The Lord is my Shepherd.."

He is not literally a Shepherd, but we have a symbiotic relationship with Him as would a literal sheep and a shepherd.

Want more?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Maybe you are just being thick, who knows?

What I'm saying is that acts of pilate were not written until 2 centuries after the crucifixion and was written by many different men, so how can you take that at face value with how corrupt and deceitful man is?

I'm not taking it at face value -- I said that it might be an interesting source, if you want to learn more about the concept of Abraham's Bosom and the Harrowing of Hell. It gives you an "in context" view of what some Christians of that time thought.

The majority of non-canonical early Christian writings were non-canonical for a reason, and this is just another one. Doesn't mean it has no value, but one has to read it with the understanding that the Church viewed it as a text that didn't need to be included in the New Testament.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I have no fear of hell, I know in whom my redemption rests. He is faithful and true, He will never leave me or forsake me. The only people who fear hell are those on their way there. There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and are the called according the His purposes.

reply to post by adjensen


Correct. Dr. Bruce Metzger explains what criteria the early church fathers used for determining which texts were considered inspired or not:

"Basically, the early church had three criteria. First, the books must have apostolic authority -- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by followers of apostles. So, in the case of Mark and Luke, while they weren’t among the twelve, early tradition has it that mark was a helper of Peter, and Luke was and associate of Paul. Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the rule of faith. That is, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative? Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had had continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large."

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sure.. "The Lord is my Shepherd.."

He is not literally a Shepherd, but we have a symbiotic relationship with Him as would a literal sheep and a shepherd.

Want more?

Yes, because that is not a real metaphor

shep·herd n.
2. One who cares for and guides a group of people, as a minister or teacher.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sure.. "The Lord is my Shepherd.."

He is not literally a Shepherd, but we have a symbiotic relationship with Him as would a literal sheep and a shepherd.

Want more?

Yes, because that is not a real metaphor

shep·herd n.
2. One who cares for and guides a group of people, as a minister or teacher.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

edit on 28-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

That is a valid definition today for a pastor BECAUSE of the Biblical metaphor.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That is a valid definition today for a pastor BECAUSE of the Biblical metaphor. You just used the genetic fallacy.

And you are engaged in a fallacy of pretending you live back in BC.
Current usage defines words, not what they meant in some prehistoric time, another difficulty you have, along with not being able to understand anything in other than a literal way.

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or ...

according to this definition in Wikipedia, you are the one guilty of this fallacy.

A commonly occurring example of this style of reasoning can be called the "etymological fallacy". This presents arguments based on the supposed real meaning of certain words, where that "real" meaning is in fact what the word meant centuries ago, or what its root word (in Latin, Greek etc.) meant.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by jmdewey60


Then explain why we use Lexicons and Concordances please. So when I read an old sermon by Johnathan Edwards from the 1800's and he uses the term "faggot" am I to not think he means a "pile of sticks" and assume he's using a derogatory term for homosexuals? When I see "conversation" in the KJV am I to assume it means speech and not "behavior"?

Words change their definition over time, the intent of the authors however never changes.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You may not fear hell now, but you did when you were a child. They scared you into believing what they taught you. Now that fear they instilled into you at a very early age pushes you to reject anything to the contrary of what you have been taught.

You still refuse to address my point about the gate to life being the narrow one. Why are you avoiding it?

reply to post by adjensen


The rich man is represented as evil in the story, when Lazarus switched places with the rich man that means Lazarus was now the evil one. Lazarus the rich and evil is at the bosom of Abraham, meaning Abraham is nurturing the rich and evil of the world. Abraham is a metaphor for money, money is the reason the 'Abrahamic' religions spawned, so that those in power could profit off of the ignorance that they taught.

Hades and heaven are completely separate from each other, how could the rich man see Lazarus and Abraham in heaven while in hell? He didn't, he saw Abraham within Hades and the gulf he mentions is the gap between the rich and poor. Does that not make sense to you?

reply to post by adjensen

You have some major anger issues, or something else going on that has nothing to do with me or my opinions, and I'd recommend that you calm down, read what is written before flying off the handle and if you can't manage that, maybe this isn't the best place for you.

Yes, I have anger issues....anger at people who continue pushing this ridiculous agenda. I am angry at society for not stepping up, for saying "it's never going to get better" and hiding behind dusty dogma that makes no sense. And I am angry at the religious right being so pompous and arrogant, when their agenda is backward and oppressive, judgmental and narrow-minded, and they REFUSE to try to think outside their little velvet-lined boxes and come up with real solutions.

I'm sick to death of people saying, "Well, it's in the Bible, and it will never change, so let's just sit around and use uppity tones of voice to remind one another, and others, that their 'silly New-age fad' idealism is futile. Because we are all failures, and we suck, and there's no help for it except to say 'Okay, sign me up, Jesus' and then just believe we'll be okay. We don't have to do anything else about it, or be respectful to those who are too naive (aww, silly little do-gooders) and stupid to get on board. Amen. Now let's go have coffee and danish in the parish hall and talk about that great round of golf we had yesterday!"

I don't care what you "recommend", I'm here to fight for a cause, and I don't care if it was me or 3NL you were calling "buttercup". It was flippant, and disrespectful, and therefore, offensive. You have some major superiority issues, and I am perfectly within my rights to protest that kind of "name-calling" toward ANYONE.

I've been more frustrated lately because I continue to be spoken to as if I'm an ignorant immature child, by people who have obviously not taken the time to become familiar with my theories and my position, and automatically feel free to disregard my dignity. I am an adult, with grown children and many, many years of study and thought behind me, and it's ridiculous for you to try to shore up your "superior knowledge" with condescending terms of endearment toward those you seek to belittle with sarcasm. And you know it, 'honeychild'.

A spirit that is not helpful and full of love, but is dark, critical, arrogant, negative, fatalistic and haughty is what keeps humanity back from moving forward into the "light". Yes, it's beginning to infuriate me.
:banghd:

reply to post by wildtimes


I wish I could copy your post and use it every time someone claims they are " right" to say their opinion is " right" in regards to the bible.... Or any other text that proves we all have an opinion.

I wish I could star and flag you a million and one or two... Ok.... Billions of times.

This is a very valid post as it pertains to MANY of us God loving people.

reply to post by MamaJ


Feel free to copy and use it. Actually, I just got done with an "edit" to it, and then decided to dump it altogether...but I came back and see I'm not alone. Thanks, MamaJ. You are appreciated as well.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yes, the biblical account of what Jesus was is a shepherd. He herds the sheep kind of like the media herds the sheeple. You just unknowingly labeled yourself as a sheep, or something that is easily manipulated.

The biblical Jesus herds the sheep to go where he pleases with the threat of the sheep dog, or hell.