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.

 

Matthew 10:34-38 becomes a disturbing reality when you begin following Jesus

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   


TextI don't think you should have the MSG on that list, it's not a translation it's a paraphrase. But u have the right idea. Also to add the corrupt versions instead of saying "Joseph" with have "the boy's father." Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it attacks the virgin birth and by extension the deity of Christ. The corrupted versions also either totally delete the last 12 verses of Mark, or call their authenticity into question in the footnotes.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


NOTurTypical

Yes I believe you are correct on all accounts. I did not realize the misinformation concerning Joseph and glad to have that shown to me. Thanks a lot. Will also add the last 12 verses of Mark into my notes which I also forgot about. Glad to have you inform me of this. Getting near on ninety and really have forgotten a lot. Thanks and God Bless




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


When did I ever say the bible is garbage? I think the bible is one of the most important pieces of literature on the planet, but that does not mean that I should take it literally.

If you look at the bible objectively, not literally, you will find that hidden meaning. I have done just that, but it just gets on my nerves when someone who doesn't look at it objectively bashes what I say and refuses to try to understand what I am saying. They call me a heretic or a heathen or whatever, yet they don't even try to understand, they just block it all out.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I respect that, but when someone doesn't respect my opinion or even try to understand it, I think that is very unfair. What I say validates the bible, not the other way around. But I guess since I reject that Jesus walked on water, everything else I say is complete nonsense and not worthy of consideration. That's the problem I have, people being so narrow-minded, to the point of ignorance.
edit on 1-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seede



TextI don't think you should have the MSG on that list, it's not a translation it's a paraphrase. But u have the right idea. Also to add the corrupt versions instead of saying "Joseph" with have "the boy's father." Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it attacks the virgin birth and by extension the deity of Christ. The corrupted versions also either totally delete the last 12 verses of Mark, or call their authenticity into question in the footnotes.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


NOTurTypical

Yes I believe you are correct on all accounts. I did not realize the misinformation concerning Joseph and glad to have that shown to me. Thanks a lot. Will also add the last 12 verses of Mark into my notes which I also forgot about. Glad to have you inform me of this. Getting near on ninety and really have forgotten a lot. Thanks and God Bless


Did you say 90 brother?? Wow, hats off to you sir, in many ways I'm envious. Barring accident you're much closer to going home to forever be with our Lord and King than I am. Want to trade spots??



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I believe you mean "subjectively". Objectively would be a literal reading.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Look up the definition, I meant objective.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, objective would be a reading that tries to understand or translate as close to the intended meaning as possible, which means using context to figure out if it's actually intended to be literal or not.

There's a difference.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Look up the definition, I meant objective.


Then you would be in the literal interpretation camp with me and you've made that clear you are not:



A KEY PRINCIPLE

Think about this! Is the meaning of a Biblical passage objective or subjective? In other words, is it possible for someone to understand what the original author meant by the words he wrote, or is the meaning of any passage totally dependent upon what the reader thinks the words mean?

Your response to this issue will largely determine the approach you take to the study of the Scriptures. If you believe that the meaning of a Biblical passage is objective, that the original author had a particular meaning in mind when he penned the words, then your approach to Scripture will need to be objective as well. You will want to look carefully at the text, pay close attention to what is there, compare the passage with other related passages, and then seek to reach conclusions about its meaning. If however, you believe that the meaning of Scripture is subjective, that the passage can mean whatever you think that it means, then your approach to Scripture will be subjective.

Your approach to the Scriptures depends upon what you believe about the Bible. Many people today believe that the Bible is one holy book among many, the work of human authors who recorded what they thought about God. Holding to this view, the Bible would be a subjective record of human thoughts about God. It would possess no intrinsic authority, other than what an individual would give to it. The reader would then be the authority, dictating to the Bible what he or she chooses for it to mean.


Here.


I'm not challenging your approach to scripture, just clearing up a confusion over the terms "objective" vs "subjective".



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, objective would be a reading that tries to understand or translate as close to the intended meaning as possible, which means using context to figure out if it's actually intended to be literal or not.

There's a difference.


Exactly. That begins with a literal reading. Objective approach to scripture is the literal approach, being mindful of culture, history, and context.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Objective approach to scripture is the literal approach, being mindful of culture, history, and context.


I think you missed what I was saying. In those days, almost nothing was literal. Stories were told in parable, and lessons taught in metaphor. Even the Bible admits that it is full of shadowy sayings and hidden truths. It is told in riddles. Why? So we can think for ourselves, and figure out what it means.

Unfortunately, that gives us the opportunity to twist everything around in our own minds and dump all the answers of life and whatever comes after right on top of religion. It's not that easy, but we've decided to MAKE it that easy. Thing is, when you use a phone as a hammer, it breaks. It is unwise to put something to use in a way it was not designed for.

There's a reason Christianity has begun to fail this world. And yes, it has. For every Christian, there's three people who will argue with that Christian and ridicule or question his/her beliefs. Now is the time for true spirituality, not religion. Religion is ruled by man, and spirituality is ruled by nature. Who do you trust more? Man, or nature?

It doesn't take rocket science.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Are you familiar with the "golden rule" of Bible interpretation?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


In Christ, the narrow path narrows to an open doorway!



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





I think you missed what I was saying. In those days, almost nothing was literal. Stories were told in parable, and lessons taught in metaphor. Even the Bible admits that it is full of shadowy sayings and hidden truths. It is told in riddles. Why? So we can think for ourselves, and figure out what it means.


Actually the reverse is true. To the ancients a great many things were taken literally. The only ones who knew different were the prophets, because God told them what it meant. The prophets were the mouthpiece of Yahweh. Where does the bible admit it is full of shadowy saying and hidden truths? You seem to be injecting alot into a book without ever reading that book for yourself, one thing that Yahweh explicitly said never to do was to add or take away from the scriptures. Revelation is for him to give.




Unfortunately, that gives us the opportunity to twist everything around in our own minds and dump all the answers of life and whatever comes after right on top of religion


You seem to have no problem twisting things around in your own mind, without ever reading the afore mentioned material in your bid to "think for yourself" when you admitted to me you have never even read the bible because "i don't read trash". You try to pretend like you know something when you don't know anything at all.




There's a reason Christianity has begun to fail this world. And yes, it has. For every Christian, there's three people who will argue with that Christian and ridicule or question his/her beliefs. Now is the time for true spirituality, not religion. Religion is ruled by man, and spirituality is ruled by nature. Who do you trust more? Man, or nature?


Again you're injection your own opinion as if it's fact, not even based upon anything you read from the book itself. Christianity hasn't begun to fail anything, we were never here for the world in the first place, so how then can we fail what we were not meant for? We don't care who tries to argue against our beliefs, it's not going to change our minds and hearts.




Now is the time for true spirituality, not religion. Religion is ruled by man, and spirituality is ruled by nature. Who do you trust more? Man, or nature?


"True spirituality"? Spirituality is ruled by nature? What a joke, you try to put a philosphical spin onto lies to make it sound like truth, you speak serpent language because you belong to him. We only put our faith and trust in One, our God whom came in the person of Jesus the Messiah who gave it all to redeem us from the world. So no, we don't trust man or nature because both are corrupted.

This is what you sound like to us:

Genesis 2:15-17 (we hear from God)

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 3:1-5 (we hear from you the underlined portions)

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

You say one thing, God says something else. Who do we trust you (Satan) or Him (Yahweh)? One wanted to protect us, the other wanted to destroy us. Sorry Satan but i see through your little meat puppet.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I think it speaks volumes about your mindset when you start to associate regular people with Satan. That's the kill-switch in Christians when it comes to thinking outside of their tiny box. When someone challenges your beliefs and it actually makes sense, you automatically associate them with the devil.

That is the fear of hell I keep bringing up, when someone brings forth compelling evidence to the contrary, your fear of Satan and hell shuts off your critical thinking skills and you automatically associate the ideas with Satan. You don't agree with the ideas because you subconsciously associate them with Satan, and that association you make keeps you from thinking critically.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 




You say one thing, God says something else. Who do we trust you (Satan) or Him (Yahweh)?


I'm more likely to take the word of the guy whose words are appearing, live, right in front of my face. Obviously, there's something going on there. Where's "God"? Sleeping off his margaritas before he blows up another country or sends a giant splash sweeping the coast of Japan.

Indulgent totalitarian hypocrite, or the guy who makes sense and let's me be myself? Hmm, wow, that's such a hard choice. Think I might have to go with the dude and leave the hypocrite in the dust.


Oh, and you calling people Satanic doesn't do much in the way of credibility. They're less likely to listen to you. Just saying.

edit on 1-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
On the Subject of the credibility of the Bible based on divine inspiration.

One has to look on the people responsible with the Bible's Canon books.

Are the people responsible for the Canon process TRUE PROPHETS/DISCIPLES??

Go see for yourself

en.wikipedia.org...

Remember, Jesus is the Word that became flesh. The Bible is NOT the WORD. Anything that doesn't agree with Jesus must not be the Word, not the Truth?

I'm beginning to see the people behind the Canon process may have other, non Godly motives. I'm continuing my studies of non-Canon books. Almost done with Book of Enoch and so far this Book does not disagree one word with the teachings of Jesus! This is for a book written thousands of years earlier

edit on 1-8-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

Did I get that right? Sounds exactly like something a Christian fundamentalist would make up, doesn't it?

Like I have said before: How does a talking snake make sense? How does eating a fruit that makes you self-aware make sense? How does a talking bush make sense? How does a god who loves unconditionally yet allows those he loves to suffer for eternity make sense? How does fitting all animal species on a boat make sense? How does the world flooding make sense? How does a man being created from dust make sense? How does a woman being made from that man's rib make sense? How does a man walking on water make sense? How does that same man turning water into wine make sense? How do any of these things make 'common sense'?

I'll tell you, they don't. So taking the bible as word for word fact is not sensible, at all. Unless you believe in fairy tales of course.
edit on 1-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Here, THIS may help.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That's where I got my quote from.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That's where I got my quote from.


Well why didn't you read it?

You even disregarded the last half of the "golden rule" which you highlighted yourself:


"... unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."


Do you know what "axiomatic" means? Taking a literal approach to scripture doesn't mean one ignores the use of certain literary devices from time to time.


edit on 1-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It means self-evident. Snakes do not make it self-evident that they talk, neither do bushes.




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join