There is NO One-Size-Fits-All religion.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It's just not the way everyone does things here, we just read the title and start firing from the hip.

Why?
You don't even bother to read the OP?
wow....
I joined thinking that people actually read the posts and links.....but....apparently I am (was) mistaken.
Firing from the hip is a bit, um, hyper-reactive...No?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No I didn't.

OK, then you have some sort of random word generating program that spits out fabricated sentences, then you post them.

I said "Whenever I do it, I remember..".

For no apparent readon then, I am to assume?

The "suffering Servant" is Jesus. lol

Because you say so? The Bible doesn't say so.

When the Eunich was reading about Jesus he was reading Isaiah 53.

It says he was reading some scripture. You are only assuming it is about Jesus.

And in Matthew Jesus said His blood would be shed "for the forgiveness of sins".

Jesus died, and in the process bled. The Greek word Peri is the one translated as for, so can be talking about the covenant, rather than the shedding, which is what is for the forgiveness.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Would that be the same Pagels who is a Gnostic and worked with Dan Brown?

She was a scholar called in to help translate the Gnostic writings from Nag Hammadi.
I find it weird that you would assume she was a Gnostic.
You should read her book on Revelation.
You might learn some normal (not from your cult) scholarship, rather than the delusional, pseudo-scholarship sort you normally go with.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That was probably good advice for me 3-4 years ago, been here a long time and I've been taught that people rarely look at others links and read/reflect/respond. I'm jaded to it now. It's just not the way everyone does things here, we just read the title and start firing from the hip.

So you operational philosophy is take the worse examples of behavior around you and adjust your own to that standard.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That was probably good advice for me 3-4 years ago, been here a long time and I've been taught that people rarely look at others links and read/reflect/respond. I'm jaded to it now. It's just not the way everyone does things here, we just read the title and start firing from the hip.

So you operational philosophy is take the worse examples of behavior around you and adjust your own to that standard.

Sorry forgot my [ sarcasm] [ / sarcasm] brackets on that one little fella.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You should read her book on Revelation.

No, I have the book of Revelation.

And I don't think Dr. Bruce Metzger is a pseudo-scholar, that's pretty arrogant. You've already attacked his comments once today.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Jesus died, and in the process bled. The Greek word Peri is the one translated as for, so can be talking about the covenant, rather than the shedding, which is what is for the forgiveness.

Both, it was shed for the forgiveness of sins and the New Covenant, you can take your pick as to which one it means to you. I really don't care if you want to keep all the laws in the OT, go for it, be my guest. I'll keep the two of the New Covenant.

Go right ahead, I hope you earn the most righteousness of anyone at the judgment.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's just not the way everyone does things here, we just read the title and start firing from the hip.

Why?
You don't even bother to read the OP?
wow....
I joined thinking that people actually read the posts and links.....but....apparently I am (was) mistaken.
Firing from the hip is a bit, um, hyper-reactive...No?

It was sarcasm. meaning some people want/demand all their links read, but won't read others. Seen it a gazillion times.

Wasn't talking to you tho. It was just sarcasm.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I hope you earn the most righteousness of anyone at the judgment

You are the one who promotes your theory of judgment as an awards ceremony.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's just not the way everyone does things here, we just read the title and start firing from the hip.

Why?
You don't even bother to read the OP?
wow....
I joined thinking that people actually read the posts and links.....but....apparently I am (was) mistaken.
Firing from the hip is a bit, um, hyper-reactive...No?

It was sarcasm. meaning some people want/demand all their links read, but won't read others. Seen it a gazillion times.

Wasn't talking to you tho.

It was just sarcasm.

So, hopefully you will read the link and start discussing the topic?
It really isn't very long or technical.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What exactly is this "theory of judgement" that you are referring to my good sir?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I hope you earn the most righteousness of anyone at the judgment

You are the one who promotes your theory of judgment as an awards ceremony.

Like I said, I hope you earn the most righteousness as anyone there. I hope your list of good works is longer than anyone else's. Like a collection of Encyclopedia volumes.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

What exactly is this "theory of judgement" that you are referring to my good sir?

He thinks there is one judgment that all people will appear before instead of there being two judgments with a different word for "judgment" describing them both. One being "Bhema" and the other one meaning "crisis".

reply to post by cloudyday

So, hopefully you will read the link and start discussing the topic?
It really isn't very long or technical.

No, Wild is a friend, not going to come in here to her thread and attack it from top to bottom. I respect her, she can ask me anything she wishes to know though, but not going to do that to her thread.

reply to post by milkyway12

What exactly is this "theory of judgement" that you are referring to my good sir?

Not my theory so it is just my interpretation of how NuT describes it, and it seems a few others on this forum subscribe to.
It seems to be inextricably connected to the rapture theory and I am guessing one is dependent on the other, in the bigger scheme that they have bought into whole cloth in a cultish sort of way.
What they do is take one verse,

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

And conflate it to mean that people who claim Jesus do not have to appear at the judgment that the Bible tells us everyone has to attend, after they die.
Again, guessing, since this is not a theory I could ever take seriously myself, that the rapture does away with the dying part, then they need a way to explain away judgment too.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Not my theory so it is just my interpretation of how NuT describes it

You failed miserably in accurately depicting my stance on it.

And it's not dependent on the rapture, that could never happen and there would still be two judgments. One for Christians and one for the world at large.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by cloudyday

 

So, hopefully you will read the link and start discussing the topic?
It really isn't very long or technical.

No, Wild is a friend, not going to come in here to her thread and attack it from top to bottom. I respect her, she can ask me anything she wishes to know though, but not going to do that to her thread.

I know that NuT is not fond of organized 'religion'... which actually is the whole point of the OP -- there is no one religion that will suit everyone.
Mornin', NuT
(though I do wish you'd at least read the ex-texts in the OP and give your thoughts calmly)

reply to post by wildtimes

I know that NuT is not fond of organized 'religion'...

I think what he means when he says "religion" in a negative way, is how "religious" people try to be good, as if that was a requirement for salvation.
What he supports is people just keep on living exactly as they always have and that salvation is based on something other than your personal behavior and no need to worry about being fit for heaven, since "we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye".
The fallacy of his theory is the misinterpretation of Paul saying 'it is not by works' where in this instance, he means the works of the Mosaic Law as spelled out in the Torah. He (NuT, not Paul) takes that and applies it to any sort of good behavior, and sees it as a virtue and a sign of faith, to actually do bad things, since it shows a lack of reliance on "works" for salvation.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Huh?
Ya lost me, friend.
My understanding of his 'faith' is that once one is 'born again' and 'saved' they don't want to sin anymore. But I may be mistaken.

Personally, I think of whatever verse it is: By their fruits shall ye know them...[Book? ch?/v?]
which, to me, means simply that Christ (or whoever was quoting him or whoever they quoted) said that private behavior and efforts to do good unto to others and to not boast about it or do it for a 'reward' alone rather than sincerely...
is wasted and false and vain.

Like I said, I don't quite get it. Especially the parts about the 'crowns'....when I was an entertainer at our local festival for several years (now I'm more in admin), they used to give out 'crowns' for exceptional performances and interactions with patrons.

People with the most crowns got prizes and stars.

I think that's not the way Christ would have encouraged people to be kind, humble, and loving. It is it's own reward.
At least, in my personal experience.