NationStates Jolt Archive

In the BIble is says you do not get in to heaven by your works this means that by being mean or bad does not determine weather you o into heaven or hell. We are all sinnners but this is whyu Jesus died on thecross for our sin \. This does not mean it is ok to sin but we all will sooner or later. Jesus also say the only way to get to heaven is throgh me. Maning Heaven is reerved for thoose who have confused with there mouth jesus is their savior I will get a lot of people will say this is not true so then look it up in the bible becuase it is all their so when someone sayss they are chriustain don't always belive what they say beacuase a lot of time they don't know what they are talking about.
This is posted to clear up much confusion

Basik']In the BIble is says you do not get in to heaven by your works this means that by being mean or bad does not determine weather you o into heaven or hell. We are all sinnners but this is whyu Jesus died on thecross for our sin \. This does not mean it is ok to sin but we all will sooner or later. Jesus also say the only way to get to heaven is throgh me. Maning Heaven is reerved for thoose who have confused with there mouth jesus is their savior I will get a lot of people will say this is not true so then look it up in the bible becuase it is all their so when someone sayss they are chriustain don't always belive what they say beacuase a lot of time they don't know what they are talking about.
This is posted to clear up much confusion

What confuses me about Hell in Christianity is how nobody in the Old Testament mentioned that we needed to be saved from it or that it even existed.

Basik']In the BIble is says you do not get in to heaven by your works this means that by being mean or bad does not determine weather you o into heaven or hell. We are all sinnners but this is whyu Jesus died on thecross for our sin \. This does not mean it is ok to sin but we all will sooner or later. Jesus also say the only way to get to heaven is throgh me. Maning Heaven is reerved for thoose who have confused with there mouth jesus is their savior I will get a lot of people will say this is not true so then look it up in the bible becuase it is all their so when someone sayss they are chriustain don't always belive what they say beacuase a lot of time they don't know what they are talking about.
This is posted to clear up much confusion

It is hard to clear something up when you can hardlyr eadit c ause thegram mar and typingis so / bad.

confused with their mouth? hahahah! "Jesus! I confuse you with my mouth that you are Lord..wait no Savior..wait I'm confused!"

What confuses me about Hell in Christianity is how nobody in the Old Testament mentioned that we needed to be saved from it or that it even existed.

The Christians just stole it from Norse mythology. Hell was original Hel, the goddess of the underworld.

Why don't you all just go to hell? :D
That was a joke...

I'm pretty sure the Book of James says repeatedly that you have to do good works as well as believe to be saved.

Basik']In the BIble is says you do not get in to heaven by your works this means that by being mean or bad does not determine weather you o into heaven or hell. We are all sinnners but this is whyu Jesus died on thecross for our sin \. This does not mean it is ok to sin but we all will sooner or later. Jesus also say the only way to get to heaven is throgh me. Maning Heaven is reerved for thoose who have confused with there mouth jesus is their savior I will get a lot of people will say this is not true so then look it up in the bible becuase it is all their so when someone sayss they are chriustain don't always belive what they say beacuase a lot of time they don't know what they are talking about.
This is posted to clear up much confusion

The only confusion here is the lack of punctuation. Try say that out loud without pausing.

I'm pretty sure the Book of James says repeatedly that you have to do good works as well as believe to be saved.
do you have specific verses?

I always took it that you would want to do good works if you really did believe, not that you are in a Jesus+ position where it's "you need Jesus+be super good"

but if you have some verses specific to "you have to do good stuff because Jesus sacrifice isn't enough and you can work your way into heaven" I would really like to see them. ;)

The Christians just stole it from Norse mythology. Hell was original Hel, the goddess of the underworld.

Hell in the new testiment was originally called gehenna for the valley where the some kings of isreal commited human sacrifices, and was also called Hades, which seems to have been taken from the greeks. Only when the bible reached the scadianavian countries was the word hell placed in the bible instead of hades and the word took off

do you have specific verses?

I always took it that you would want to do good works if you really did believe, not that you are in a Jesus+ position where it's "you need Jesus+be super good"

but if you have some verses specific to "you have to do good stuff because Jesus sacrifice isn't enough and you can work your way into heaven" I would really like to see them. ;)


Read James 2:14-26

It says in short faith without works is like a dead fish, but you do need works according to this book

Read James 2:14-26

It says in short faith without works is like a dead fish, but you do need works according to this book
I have read it, it seems to me to be a call to Christians to put their faith into action, not a set of rules on how to get to heaven

I have read it, it seems to me to be a call to Christians to put their faith into action, not a set of rules on how to get to heaven

I think the logic is - if you have faith, but you have no works... your faith is worth nothing.

Yes - you can read that as saying... 'faithful, do good stuff'... or you can read it as 'works are half the battle'.

I'd imagine most of it depends on where you 'weight' the importance of each biblical testimony.

I have read it, it seems to me to be a call to Christians to put their faith into action, not a set of rules on how to get to heaven

THe original Christainity i.e. Pre-Paul did not have many rules. If you are looking for rules I suggest reading the letters of Paul

I think the logic is - if you have faith, but you have no works... your faith is worth nothing.

Yes - you can read that as saying... 'faithful, do good stuff'... or you can read it as 'works are half the battle'.

I'd imagine most of it depends on where you 'weight' the importance of each biblical testimony.


Lol Seems like we keep running into each other on these forums :)

Lol Seems like we keep running into each other on these forums :)

Bible threads.... I'm usually all over them. :)

Shalom, friend.

Bible threads.... I'm usually all over them. :)

Shalom, friend.

Awesome, I am usually all over them if they are not flame threads :)

The Christians just stole it from Norse mythology. Hell was original Hel, the goddess of the underworld.
I don't know early Germanic tribal religion, but I'm pretty sure that the Norse Vikings came hundreds of years after Christianity.

Awesome, I am usually all over them if they are not flame threads :)

Well... many of the best ones HAVE been fairly heavily flamed as well....

So long as I'm spending more time getting debate-play, than hiding behind a flame-retardant wall... I consider it a fairly positive experience.

I don't know early Germanic tribal religion, but I'm pretty sure that the Norse Vikings came hundreds of years after Christianity.

Loosely, Norse mythology has been in the works since man met Europe.

Loosely, Norse mythology has been in the works since man met Europe.
Yes, but I'm not sure if that Goddess was still called Hel back then. The name could have changed.

THe original Christainity i.e. Pre-Paul did not have many rules. If you are looking for rules I suggest reading the letters of Paul
I am aware of that, I don't agree however that Paul had a lot of "rules" either, he was just trying to keep people out of trouble, it wasn't so much "do what I say and follow these rules to get to heaven" as much as "these are the things that trip people up and get them going in the wrong direction so watch out for them" but that's just my own opinion. ;)

Edit: Oh, and there is also the fact that Paul spent a whole heck of a lot of time speaking against legalism in the church, and about how the "old law" isn't needed, and all that.

To the first poster.

I am very confused. How in the world did you come by this great knowledge of God and the after life and what it takes to get eternal bliss.

To the first poster.

I am very confused. How in the world did you come by this great knowledge of God and the after life and what it takes to get eternal bliss.
The Bible, I'd assume.

Yes, but I'm not sure if that Goddess was still called Hel back then. The name could have changed.
As far as words go, the English word for "Hell", id est, eternal damnation and complete severance from the God, did come from a proto-Germanic language that was present when Chirstianity was spreading thorughout the Roman Empire. I think that's all they were refering to, as my understanding of the goddess Hel in Norse methology isn't quite what Hell is.

The name could have changed, but we have no written proof on the Norse side of things, as everything was written down for the most part after Christanization.

As far as words go, the English word for "Hell", id est, eternal damnation and complete severance from the God, did come from a proto-Germanic language that was present when Chirstianity was spreading thorughout the Roman Empire. I think that's all they were refering to, as my understanding of the goddess Hel in Norse methology isn't quite what Hell is.

The name could have changed, but we have no written proof on the Norse side of things, as everything was written down for the most part after Christanization.Okay. Thanks for the information.

Okay. Thanks for the information.
No problemo, amigo or amiga. ;)

No problemo, amigo or amiga. ;)
Amigo. :)

What confuses me about Hell in Christianity is how nobody in the Old Testament mentioned that we needed to be saved from it or that it even existed.

http://biblia.com/heaven/hell-names.htm

There

Oh god, maybe I shouldn't have eaten all those babies...

Basik']In the BIble is says you do not get in to heaven by your works this means that by being mean or bad does not determine weather you o into heaven or hell. We are all sinnners but this is whyu Jesus died on thecross for our sin \. This does not mean it is ok to sin but we all will sooner or later. Jesus also say the only way to get to heaven is throgh me. Maning Heaven is reerved for thoose who have confused with there mouth jesus is their savior I will get a lot of people will say this is not true so then look it up in the bible becuase it is all their so when someone sayss they are chriustain don't always belive what they say beacuase a lot of time they don't know what they are talking about.
This is posted to clear up much confusion
The bible is not practical. God, however is.

Oh god, maybe I shouldn't have eaten all those babies...
got heartburn?

http://biblia.com/heaven/hell-names.htm

There

Whih point is that supposed to prove?

You'll note that your source is revisionist, anyway... and speaks far too assuredly about things that just are not true.... like claiming "the Hebrew gê-hinnom... is correctly translated each time by the KJV as 'hell.'"

Actually translating ge-hinnom as 'hell' is incorrect... since ge-hinnom is EITHER a purely geographical reference, OR it is used figuratively. It is not possible to directly translate it (accurately) as anything like "Hell".

Actually, the concept of hell does exist in the OT. It was not called hell specifically, but conceptually it was there. Also, in the NT, there is a story about how Jesus went and preached to all those that had died before Jesus' time to give them an opportunity to put their faith in him, although I don't quite remember at the moment where that passage is at. There is also the story that Jesus tells about Lazarus and another man and the "great chasm" between them.

As far as works/deeds getting you into heaven, Jesus was explicitly clear when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."{John 14:6} And by that we can tie into what Paul said in Ephesians: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."{Ephesians 2:8,9}. So, yes, works will not save you, however...

The passage in James reads like this: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."{James 2:17-19}. Simply, it is not enough to say that because you believe in God you therefore have faith in God. As James put it, even the demons believe in God but that doesn't mean that they have a faith in God. No, instead, a person's faith is self-evident by how it is expressed through a person's actions. In other words, you can't claim to have a faith in God and yet in the same moment be watching a porn movie. A person such as that should rightly have their faith questioned. James makes it clear: if a person is serious about their faith in Christ, then their actions will bear that faith out and really, no words would be necessary.

I am aware of that, I don't agree however that Paul had a lot of "rules" either, he was just trying to keep people out of trouble, it wasn't so much "do what I say and follow these rules to get to heaven" as much as "these are the things that trip people up and get them going in the wrong direction so watch out for them" but that's just my own opinion. ;)

Edit: Oh, and there is also the fact that Paul spent a whole heck of a lot of time speaking against legalism in the church, and about how the "old law" isn't needed, and all that.

Isn't Paul the colourful character that said women should never speak in church, and that, if they had any spiritual questions, they should ask their husbands to 'explain it to them'?

Just what sort of trouble was he trying to keep people out of?

Actually, the concept of hell does exist in the OT. It was not called hell specifically, but conceptually it was there. Also, in the NT, there is a story about how Jesus went and preached to all those that had died before Jesus' time to give them an opportunity to put their faith in him, although I don't quite remember at the moment where that passage is at. There is also the story that Jesus tells about Lazarus and another man and the "great chasm" between them.

As far as I know the hebrews only had 'Sheol', a kind of grave complex for souls where everyone went, there was no judgement, no reward and no punishment. The idea of hell appeared in hebrew culture not long before Christianity.

Actually, the concept of hell does exist in the OT. It was not called hell specifically, but conceptually it was there. Also, in the NT, there is a story about how Jesus went and preached to all those that had died before Jesus' time to give them an opportunity to put their faith in him, although I don't quite remember at the moment where that passage is at. There is also the story that Jesus tells about Lazarus and another man and the "great chasm" between them.

As far as works/deeds getting you into heaven, Jesus was explicitly clear when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."{John 14:6} So, faith and hope in Christ is the only way into heaven. That being said...

The passage in James reads like this: "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."{James 2:17-19}. Simply, it is not enough to say that because you believe in God you therefore have faith in God. As James put it, even the demons believe in God but that doesn't mean that they have a faith in God. No, instead, a person's faith is self-evident by how it is expressed through a person's actions. In other words, you can't claim to have a faith in God and yet in the same moment be watching a porn movie. A person such as that should rightly have their faith questioned. James makes it clear: if a person is serious about their faith in Christ, then their actions will bear that faith out and really, no words would be necessary.

Actually - you might like to bear in mind that, when you claim: "Jesus was explicitly clear when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""... you are wrong. Jesus said nothing of the sort, since you are quoting text that is only a TRANSLATION... which means it is, at best, what a later reader THOUGHT he might have meant.

Isn't Paul the colourful character that said women should never speak in church, and that, if they had any spiritual questions, they should ask their husbands to 'explain it to them'?
ah, you have to remember that he was writing letters to specific churches, not writing down rules for everyone. The letter that says that women weren't allowed to speak in church was to a specific church who had a problem with women asking simple questions that their husbands could answer later, and disrupting church. Women for a long time hadn't even been allowed in church and they were now and were causing problems, he was trying to keep the women from getting booted out of church.

Just what sort of trouble was he trying to keep people out of?
spiritual trouble (not necessarily trying to keep them out of hell mind you, but trying to keep them spiritually sane) just like if I were trying to keep you out of financial trouble, I would probably advise you not to get a cell phone in your name for someone else, since they will run up your bill and not pay and you will have the debt, it wouldn't be a law, so much as "if this fits your situation, here in my experience is what I have seen happen so you may want to stear clear of doing that"

http://biblia.com/heaven/hell-names.htm

There

Sheol (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=614&letter=S)

It would seem that Sheol (and Hades) are very different from the Christian 'Hell', try again.

Actually - you might like to bear in mind that, when you claim: "Jesus was explicitly clear when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""... you are wrong. Jesus said nothing of the sort, since you are quoting text that is only a TRANSLATION... which means it is, at best, what a later reader THOUGHT he might have meant.

One of the biggest misconceptions about a translation is that is entirely an interpretation of what was really said. John 14:6, the verse quoted above, appears roughly the same in every english translation; by roughly the same I mean the intent and message conveyed remains the same. Go to www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6;&version=31;) or www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1138459824-4391.html#6) and look through all of the english translations available and you will see what I mean. Even the literal translations, that is, those that are literal, non-interpretive translations convey the same message. There are times when the original greek or hebrew used is in question and it requires at least some small amount of interpretation, but this passage is not one them; if it were, you would see a much greater variance in the different translations.

ah, you have to remember that he was writing letters to specific churches, not writing down rules for everyone. The letter that says that women weren't allowed to speak in church was to a specific church who had a problem with women asking simple questions that their husbands could answer later, and disrupting church. Women for a long time hadn't even been allowed in church and they were now and were causing problems, he was trying to keep the women from getting booted out of church.


spiritual trouble (not necessarily trying to keep them out of hell mind you, but trying to keep them spiritually sane) just like if I were trying to keep you out of financial trouble, I would probably advise you not to get a cell phone in your name for someone else, since they will run up your bill and not pay and you will have the debt, it wouldn't be a law, so much as "if this fits your situation, here in my experience is what I have seen happen so you may want to stear clear of doing that"

Sounds like more Christian maneuvering to me.... when Paul says something we like, he means all of us.... when we don't like it... he just means those people, over there.

Also - Christians weren't all Jews.... many of them were Roman converts (who would have had no problems with women in church), or were from areas like Thessaly, where the religious orders WERE female.

Paul's prejudices are not so easily explained away.

I am aware of that, I don't agree however that Paul had a lot of "rules" either, he was just trying to keep people out of trouble, it wasn't so much "do what I say and follow these rules to get to heaven" as much as "these are the things that trip people up and get them going in the wrong direction so watch out for them" but that's just my own opinion. ;)

Edit: Oh, and there is also the fact that Paul spent a whole heck of a lot of time speaking against legalism in the church, and about how the "old law" isn't needed, and all that.
People say that about Paul, but you'd really be surprised how much of the old scriptures he relies on; Romans, in particular, is full of it. There is never any doubt in his mind that the God of Israel is just as the text says. In a sense, his notion of the nature of God retains firm grounds in theology before Jesus, merely adjusting the interpretation of Isaiah to imply a more supernatural interpretation of the Kingdom of Heaven. The only issue is now God has provided a way by which holding the Law to the Letter and complete submission to his redemption are equivilent. In my opinion, this isn't exactly radically different to what was already understood.

Similarly, I don't think his doctrine is as separate from Judaism as he claims. Sure, Paul does a fair bit of condemning the people of Israel, but as we all know, like charges repel. Necessity of sacrifice, acceptance of the Ten Commandments as divine mandate, hope for the future Kingdom and an eye on the prophecies of the past all echo strongly in his own vision of what is true.

And, to be honest, I think he misses the point in Jesus in the process. This might just be my interpretation, but as I gather it, the idea isn't to devise notions about God based on his actions; that is, things he has done for us and will do for us if we act accordingly. Israel lived their lives with attitude, and if it remains in Paul, nothing has changed. We're not supposed to be internal in our approach. It's about seeking God's character and engaging in a relationship with him for its own sake and letting that be the focus. I find that notion worryingly absent in Paul.

Sounds like more Christian maneuvering to me.... when Paul says something we like, he means all of us.... when we don't like it... he just means those people, over there.

Also - Christians weren't all Jews.... many of them were Roman converts (who would have had no problems with women in church), or were from areas like Thessaly, where the religious orders WERE female.

Paul's prejudices are not so easily explained away.

It is not Christian maneuvering. There are times in Paul's letters where he is specifically addressing an issue or concern to a particular church and there are times when even when he is doing that, the message is applicable to all. In the situation with the women in the church, the message can be applicable to all if taken a bit more abstractly. The message is simply that just because we have freedom in Christ, it does mean that that freedom cannot be abused and become detrimental to the health of the church body, and therefore, it must be kept in check at times. This was the situation Paul was addressing but it is also a potential situation that can happen in today's world as well.

One of the biggest misconceptions about a translation is that is entirely an interpretation of what was really said. John 14:6, the verse quoted above, appears roughly the same in every english translation; by roughly the same I mean the intent and message conveyed remains the same. Go to www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:6;&version=31;) or www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1138459824-4391.html#6) and look through all of the english translations available and you will see what I mean. Even the literal translations, that is, those that are literal, non-interpretive translations convey the same message. There are times when the original greek or hebrew used is in question and it requires at least some small amount of interpretation, but this passage is not one them; if it were, you would see a much greater variance in the different translations.

You are missing something.

When translating a bible, the translation team takes into account TWO big factors.... 1) what is written in the original language, and 2) what are the 'received' translations of the content.

It is fairly rare for a translation to diverge far from 'received' translation.... words are left with their historical 'meanings'... which is why most NT translations will mention 'witches' for example, when the Greek language actually suggests something FAR closer to 'poisoner'.

In one of the threads we debated on (fairly) recently, I actually took John 14:6 apart to it's component pieces, and illustrated how different translations of that one verse COULD be, when taken from the original text. I ended up with two 'extremes'... both of which were scripturally consistent, both of which came directly from the 'words of Jesus'... but suggesting very different meanings.

(I'll see if I can find a link...)

Ok hell cant exist in the fire brimstone sense cos:

Its unjust and unfair

The defence for this is that when we die we are given knowledge of everything, and feel so guilty for what we have done we choose to go to hell, this idea was backed by church officials.
However, god still creates the soul KNOWING it will go to hell, and is therefore not entirely good.

Hell could possibly exist in the guilt sense.
God loves all of his creations and we are supposed to love him,
those that sin against him feel such a large amount of guilt for all eternity and are unable to end it due to the fact the soul is Immortal.
But they are still in "heaven" this has also been backed by church officials.
(shows the flip-flopper populists for what they are.)

Sounds like more Christian maneuvering to me.... when Paul says something we like, he means all of us.... when we don't like it... he just means those people, over there.

Also - Christians weren't all Jews.... many of them were Roman converts (who would have had no problems with women in church), or were from areas like Thessaly, where the religious orders WERE female.

Paul's prejudices are not so easily explained away.
so you are saying that either everything that Paul says applies to everyone or none of it does?

It is not Christian maneuvering. There are times in Paul's letters where he is specifically addressing an issue or concern to a particular church and there are times when even when he is doing that, the message is applicable to all. In the situation with the women in the church, the message can be applicable to all if taken a bit more abstractly. The message is simply that just because we have freedom in Christ, it does mean that that freedom cannot be abused and become detrimental to the health of the church body, and therefore, it must be kept in check at times. This was the situation Paul was addressing but it is also a potential situation that can happen in today's world as well.

Didn't you just admit it IS 'Christian maneuvering', though? That it is a matter of 'discernment' whether you choose to accept a passage as being JUST to one church, or to ALL the church? That passage is no more or less 'focused' than any other... (and, indeed, I have seen the exact policy outlined as 'law' in some of the little Southern Baptist churches round here)... so there really is no justification for reading that ONLY as a recommendation to 'one church' EXCEPT for desire that it be so.

so you are saying that either everything that Paul says applies to everyone or none of it does?

No - I'm saying that Paul sets out rules, and that they are seemingly interpreted depending on which way seems favourable at the time.

I've not much time for Paul, anyway. He witnessed none of the earthly ministry... so he is, at best, a commentator. And one, apparently, with a number of axes to grind.

It disturbs me that the modern organised religions place as much faith in the words of a man whe never met Jesus, as they do in the words attributed TO Jesus. And - indeed, MORE faith in his words, than those of (say, James) people who knew Jesus, personally.

Orgainsed Christianity is a misnomer. Modern churches are rarely Christian... more like Pauline.

do you have specific verses?

I always took it that you would want to do good works if you really did believe, not that you are in a Jesus+ position where it's "you need Jesus+be super good"

but if you have some verses specific to "you have to do good stuff because Jesus sacrifice isn't enough and you can work your way into heaven" I would really like to see them. ;)


James 2:14-26

No - I'm saying that Paul sets out rules, and that they are seemingly interpreted depending on which way seems favourable at the time.

I've not much time for Paul, anyway. He witnessed none of the earthly ministry... so he is, at best, a commentator. And one, apparently, with a number of axes to grind.

It disturbs me that the modern organised religions place as much faith in the words of a man whe never met Jesus, as they do in the words attributed TO Jesus. And - indeed, MORE faith in his words, than those of (say, James) people who knew Jesus, personally.

Orgainsed Christianity is a misnomer. Modern churches are rarely Christian... more like Pauline.
Well... I could go into another "Brand Name" tirade on this point, but it seems I upset even the more moderate Christians with that one. Needless to say, it seems to me that Christianity is whatever the common concensus of Christians says it is.

While I agree entirely with your skepticism of Paul, the tendency of people to listen to him over Jesus is an entirely explainable one. Paul is the iconic Christian; a fellow follower. Jesus didn't know what it was like to live under sinful nature swept clean - Paul "did". As such, people identify more with him as the role model than the one who went before him. It's a typical human response - listen to the one who best mirrors our position. After all, it is much easier to be distracted by the man whispering beside you than it is to listen to the one shouting at the front of the room.

Well... I could go into another "Brand Name" tirade on this point, but it seems I upset even the more moderate Christians with that one. Needless to say, it seems to me that Christianity is whatever the common concensus of Christians says it is.

While I agree entirely with your skepticism of Paul, the tendency of people to listen to him over Jesus is an entirely explainable one. Paul is the iconic Christian; a fellow follower. Jesus didn't know what it was like to live under sinful nature swept clean - Paul "did". As such, people identify more with him as the role model than the one who went before him. It's a typical human response - listen to the one who best mirrors our position. After all, it is much easier to be distracted by the man whispering beside you than it is to listen to the one shouting at the front of the room.

See - I don't buy the sinless Christ logo. I don't see any point in a physical incarnation, if the flesh is not experienced.

The Old Testament lambs were without blemish, but they were not expected to be above their biological nature.

Maybe, Jesus could be 'without intention of sin', but I can't see his flesh, freed from all sin, as being 'human'.

I have actually met people (since I moved to the Bible Belt) who have attempted to convince me that Jesus never so much as urinated... because we are 'defined by what comes out of us'...

And, THAT, for me, is a big problem in 'Christianity'... it has two 'gods'... one of which it tries to pass off as human, but which fails to actually BE human.

See - I don't buy the sinless Christ logo. I don't see any point in a physical incarnation, if the flesh is not experienced.

The Old Testament lambs were without blemish, but they were not expected to be above their biological nature.

Maybe, Jesus could be 'without intention of sin', but I can't see his flesh, freed from all sin, as being 'human'.

I have actually met people (since I moved to the Bible Belt) who have attempted to convince me that Jesus never so much as urinated... because we are 'defined by what comes out of us'...

And, THAT, for me, is a big problem in 'Christianity'... it has two 'gods'... one of which it tries to pass off as human, but which fails to actually BE human.

You moved to the Bible belt?:eek: I'm amazed you've survived this long.

You moved to the Bible belt?:eek: I'm amazed you've survived this long.

Moved from one of the most cosmopolitan and open-minded cities I've ever been to (Leicester, UK), to the North-East Georgia mountains... about 5 years ago, now.

It was something of a culture-shock, I can tell you.

And, the scary thing is.... so many people here seem unaware that there is a world out there where people are considered 'equal', despite being black, or gay, or female....

heaven and hell are states of Mind, states of Existence.. not places off somewhere else. they're internal.

Moved from one of the most cosmopolitan and open-minded cities I've ever been to (Leicester, UK), to the North-East Georgia mountains... about 5 years ago, now.

It was something of a culture-shock, I can tell you.

And, the scary thing is.... so many people here seem unaware that there is a world out there where people are considered 'equal', despite being black, or gay, or female....

Sounds even worse than I imagined, you have my sympathies friend.

Sounds even worse than I imagined, you have my sympathies friend.

It hasn't been all bad... I've also met some very nice people... although part of that could be that I am lucky enough to be male, white and married...

And the scenery is just beautiful...

See - I don't buy the sinless Christ logo. I don't see any point in a physical incarnation, if the flesh is not experienced.

The Old Testament lambs were without blemish, but they were not expected to be above their biological nature.

Maybe, Jesus could be 'without intention of sin', but I can't see his flesh, freed from all sin, as being 'human'.

I have actually met people (since I moved to the Bible Belt) who have attempted to convince me that Jesus never so much as urinated... because we are 'defined by what comes out of us'...

And, THAT, for me, is a big problem in 'Christianity'... it has two 'gods'... one of which it tries to pass off as human, but which fails to actually BE human.

Jesus said nothing of the sort though. He spoke against cursing and other words that come out of you. They can defile you.
You should read them that part again when Jesus speaks about what goes in and what goes out and corruption.

Christianity has only one God anmd his name is Elohim, hallowed be his name. The Word (his son) created this world through (Gods) power.

The problem is that Christianity since Catholicism has been corrupted by the words and deeds of man. Heck, Peter didn't even reall give the Pope authority(The man he gave power to was killed by the false pope); which was why John had to give prophecy even though he was banished. the Pope had no ability.

Jesus was human. He was tempted (meaning tried/tested), but did not give in.
He grew little by little in glory and power. He was never freed from sin, but choose to never do it.

There is a difference.
Example:
1) I am freed from breaking laws. I can do whatever I want and never have to worry about being arrested.

2) I am choose to never break a law. Thus, I am free from ever being arrested. I am still tempted to break a law like littering (etc), but I never do it.

Jesus was #2. You are thinking of #1.

Jesus said nothing of the sort though. He spoke against cursing and other words that come out of you. They can defile you.
You should read them that part again when Jesus speaks about what goes in and what goes out and corruption.

Christianity has only one God anmd his name is Elohim, hallowed be his name. The Word (his son) created this world through (Gods) power.

The problem is that Christianity since Catholicism has been corrupted by the words and deeds of man. Heck, Peter didn't even reall give the Pope authority(The man he gave power to was killed by the false pope); which was why John had to give prophecy even though he was banished. the Pope had no ability.

Jesus was human. He was tempted (meaning tried/tested), but did not give in.
He grew little by little in glory and power. He was never freed from sin, but choose to never do it.

There is a difference.
Example:
1) I am freed from breaking laws. I can do whatever I want and never have to worry about being arrested.

2) I am choose to never break a law. Thus, I am free from ever being arrested. I am still tempted to break a law like littering (etc), but I never do it.

Jesus was #2. You are thinking of #1.

Don't be confused, friend... I appreciate where you are coming from, but you are wrong about my conclusions.

I don't necessarily believe that Jesus would have murdered anyone (and, of course, if he IS the 'living word'... it wouldn't be murder, anyway...) but I certainly believe he ate, drank, loved and lusted like the rest of us. The New Testament excuses many of his sinful acts, by allowing his alleged 'godhood' to permit him to rewrite Levitical law... but, of course his HUMAN (Jewish) form sins everytime it breaks the Old laws about food (for example).

His little performance in the temple also speaks to his very real sin... the sin of Wrath.


Oh - just one other thing.... 'elohim' is not a name... it is a 'rank'.

See - I don't buy the sinless Christ logo. I don't see any point in a physical incarnation, if the flesh is not experienced.
I don't either. Mere third person observation, that was.

Anyway, I reckon that the approach Paul takes is precisely what induces the response to him that places him as the "More Human Jesus"; which is, primarily, why I dislike his influence on the Christian message immensely. At the core of Pauline ideas is the notion that Jesus is an action by God more than he is a human being with emotions and ideas of his own. Which I suppose makes sense in the context, given Paul never met the man. Jesus was something God did, first and foremost, and from that truth comes the interpretation of his ideas.

In a sense, Paul's ideas create the circumstances within which they flourish. Crafty. Worryingly so, in fact.

I don't either. Mere third person observation, that was.

Anyway, I reckon that the approach Paul takes is precisely what induces the response to him that places him as the "More Human Jesus"; which is, primarily, why I dislike his influence on the Christian message immensely. At the core of Pauline ideas is the notion that Jesus is an action by God more than he is a human being with emotions and ideas of his own. Which I suppose makes sense in the context, given Paul never met the man. Jesus was something God did, first and foremost, and from that truth comes the interpretation of his ideas.

In a sense, Paul's ideas create the circumstances within which they flourish. Crafty. Worryingly so, in fact.

I see nothing here I can disagree with. We think somewhat alike, perhaps.

I see nothing here I can disagree with. We think somewhat alike, perhaps.
Can't argue with that. Go us? :D

I'm pretty sure the Book of James says repeatedly that you have to do good works as well as believe to be saved.

...and Paul said repeatedly that it is not for works, "lest you boast"

it's all about the belief... whereupon "works" should follow.

God knows the heart... if you're an asshole who claims to be saved, perhaps you're really not. who knows?

As for becoming saved, I point to John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 as the best ways to start...

Can't argue with that. Go us? :D

Indeed. I don't think it's a bad thing... :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadowy Nexus
To the first poster.

I am very confused. How in the world did you come by this great knowledge of God and the after life and what it takes to get eternal bliss.

The Bible, I'd assume.

Exactly why should we trust the Bible as a reliable source and why is the interpretatation of the original poster reliable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadowy Nexus
To the first poster.

I am very confused. How in the world did you come by this great knowledge of God and the after life and what it takes to get eternal bliss.



Exactly why should we trust the Bible as a reliable source and why is the interpretatation of the original poster reliable?
I didn't say it was so. I only said that thats where he got his information. Doesn't mean it's right.