NationStates Jolt Archive

"Not everyone who calls me Lord (or claims to be a christian) is my disciple (or an actual christian). But only those who do my commandments." Jesus

Paranthesis mine.

How nice. Now our friend, Bob, is willing to amend the words of Jesus, himself. Nothing prideful about that.

Here is the actual quote.

Matthew 7:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

My friends, you have seen the fruit of this tree. His PRIDE and ARROGANCE is not the will of God, despite his claims. As you can see, the ACTUAL quote shows that many will claim that their WORKS is what makes them deserve to be let into heaven and you can see the reply of Jesus. Our friend, Bobby, claims that bragging about his works shows he's a Christian.

This is why he paraphrased the passage rather than quoting the actual words of Jesus and let you make up your own minds. Because if you examine the actual words you will see the folly of his claims.

Apparently, the fruits Christ was referring to was not works as you can see in the passage. Jesus expected us to be Christian, not ACT Christian. Your light is evidenced in your attitude and your treatment of others, not in your good works.

Matthew 7: 9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Christ summed up the Law and the Prophets, summed up the Will of God in a direction so simple and so good it takes only one line. Do to others what you would have them do to you. You want to know what a 'true Christian' is let the Word tell you, not some guy on the internet that's been declaring for a week that he's better than all of us. Jesus' words are recorded and despite the claims of our 'true Christian', they are actual quotes of Jesus and NOT the words of Mark, Luke, Mathew or John. Be not deceived.

Wasn't it Peter that denied he knew Jesus 3 times before the roostered crowed or something like that?

What's a roostered?

We are all guilty of mistakes and Peter was frightened. Jesus forgave him even before he did it.

What's a roostered?

We are all guilty of mistakes and Peter was frightened. Jesus forgave him even before he did it.

Ok good I do have the right person :D

And I was thinking about the past tense of Rooster :D

Ok good I do have the right person :D

And I was thinking about the past tense of Rooster :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

Also, to be accurate, there are not ten commandments. They are not numbered and if they were they could be numbered anywhere from one (as Jesus summed them up) to like fifteen or so, depending on how you summarize similar commandments or how you break them up.

And I was thinking about the past tense of Rooster :D

Actually 'ed indicates the perfect tense. Grammer nazi away! *flies into a wall*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

Also, to be accurate, there are not ten commandments. They are not numbered and if they were they could be numbered anywhere from one (as Jesus summed them up) to like fifteen or so, depending on how you summarize similar commandments or how you break them up.

Ah... don't even get me started on the Ten Commandments....

Ah... don't even get me started on the Ten Commandments....

By the way, is the Troll hunting season or something?

By the way, is the Troll hunting season or something?

I find myself wondering if some other forum just closed-dowm or something...

I find myself wondering if some other forum just closed-dowm or something...

You used the word, find, wrong. I hope you're embarrassed. Let's talk about it for 16 pages while I just make stuff and be contrary. You don't find yourself. You were never lost.

You used the word, other, wrong. I hope you're embarrassed.

Sorry, you are correct. :D

Edit: Hey - no fair. Changing which word I had wrong before I had a chance to deny it!

You used the word, find, wrong.
Well, to be fair, the use of the word 'wrong' in this sentence is grammatically suspect... :p

Sorry, you are correct. :D

Edit: Hey - no fair. Changing which word I had wrong before I had a chance to deny it!

Find was easier to argue about.

Yay, lets argue about translations and passages in a book that some guys wrote thousands of years ago to control society. My turn.

Adam and Eve fucked like dogs...discuss.

Yay, lets argue about translations and passages in a book that some guys wrote thousands of years ago to control society. My turn.

Adam and Eve fucked like dogs...discuss.

If you're not interested, here's a clue, don't click. Some may consider arguing on the internet a loser activity, and arguing about the Bible even moreso, but one really has little room to defend oneself when not only do you engage in arguing on the internet and an argument about the Bible, but you don't actually come to discuss or learn anything, but simply to post nothing. Next time it's too dark to play outside, perhaps you can skip over our thread and read a book or do some pushups or anything productive rather than telling us how you don't care to be involved in the debate you THRUST yourself into? Sound good?

We're rather enjoying ourselves, and we find educating ourselves and exploring the views of others to be a worthwhile activity. If you don't, I recommend you find an activity you do find worthwhile.

Yay, lets argue about translations and passages in a book that some guys wrote thousands of years ago to control society. My turn.

Adam and Eve fucked like dogs...discuss.
I've been sitting back just reading what the rest think. I stopped posting cause I think I've pretty much put my views down.

So I'm sitting here reading the thread, with all these wanna be christians and self acknowledged nonchristians decry Whittier's view.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion even if it turns out to be wrong.

Then along comes some gutterslut with a nation called Forfania Gottesleugner who just jumps in with nothing pertinent and does the forum version of mad dogging the participants hoping to get some kind of a flame war started.

Well I got a better idea. How about FG turn his little gutterslut ass around and go back to that rock he crawled out from under.
You can KMAA.


To the other participants:

You guys are right that I was being arrogant. Which is wrong on my part.
However, my version of Christianity is still the right version. I just have weaknesses, that most of the time prevent me from living up to that version of christianity.


Note: The phrase KMAA or it's expanded version, Kiss My American Ass, is officially copyrighted, January 2006 by me.

As Jocabia keeps making references to the pharisees, showing he has no understanding of who they were or what Jesus real relationship to them was, and seeing as he is not the only with a misinformed view of the situation between Jesus and the Pharisees:

http://www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

"In the New Testament the Pharisees appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance of the letter rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation by Jesus;"

"scholars point out that according to the Gospels the disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees centered primarily on the validity and application of purity, tithing, and sabbath laws (e.g., Matt. 12:2, 12-14; 15:1-12; Mark 2:16; Luke 11:39-42). "

Jesus did not condemn the teachings of the Pharisees, rather he told people to follow the teachings. What he said not to do was to follow the practices.

Matthew 23 which Jocabia keeps qouting out of context says this at the beginning:

"Matthew
Chapter 23
1
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4
They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5
4 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6
5 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7
greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8
6 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10
Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11
The greatest among you must be your servant.
12
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13
7 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven 8 before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.
14
) 9
15
10 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.
16
11 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.'
17
Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?
18
And you say, 'If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.'
19
You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20
One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it;
21
one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it;
22
one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.
23
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes 12 of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others.
24
13 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
25
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.
26
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.
27
15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.
28
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.
29
16 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, 17 you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
30
and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.'
31
Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets;
32
now fill up what your ancestors measured out!
33
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?
34
18 Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town,
35
so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
36
Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37
19 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!
38
Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.
39
I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"


Verses 1 to 3 make it clear. The Pharisees sat in Moses seat, therefore it was that we should follow their teachings. This is the words of Jesus. Jocabia likes to talk about only the words of Jesus matter. This is what Jesus said.
He only said to not copy their practices.
If you are a christian there are certain things you need to do.

Jesus called the Pharisees good teachers while calling them bad examples.

The question is not one of pride but one of hypocrisy. While you rail public against the sinful lives of others, how do you live in public? The issue is one of hypocrisy.

the pharisees cared about the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.

People in this thread have said that they are christians even if they don't keep the commandments.

Matthew 19:17 "If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
- Matthew 19:17b, (Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20)

"Those who heard him speak these words knew Jesus referred to the entire Torah of Moses, both written and oral, as he instructed all Jews to abide by all that was taught to them by the 'sages and the Pharisees who sit upon the seat of Moses'."
- Miryam Nathan


"The lawteachers and the Pharisees sit in Moses' chair. This means you're supposed to observe and follow everything they tell you. But don't do what they do; after all, they're all talk and no action."
- Matthew 23:2

Jesus "goes out of his way to attack the Sadducees personally: 'Is not the reason why you are in error, namely, that you are ignorant both of the Scripture and of the power of God?' This is a remarkably pointed barb aimed at the priestly guardians of divine power, supposedly centered in the Jerusalem temple.
"With the Pharisees [the pious laity], the scribes [the lay scholars/lawyers/theologians], and the rulers of the synagogues, Jesus engages in regular debate, and sometimes relations can even be friendly."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1

If I'm a Pharisee, you guys are Sadducees.

http://www.bible-history.com/pharisees/PHARISEESJesus_and_the_Pharisees.htm

Those of you who insist on questioning church authority should take note:
Matt 15:1-3 "Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?"

In this verse Jesus is primarily accusing the Pharisaic scribes and the content of the oral law was called into question. The "tradition of men" had taken the place of, and had nullified, the commandments of the Word of God. Jesus did not question the rightful authority of these scribes, nor did He question everything that the scribes and Pharisees had taught.

Heck here is the rest of it:

Matt 23:1-5 "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men."

Jesus apparently did not question the traditions but revealed that they were hypocrites in that they were not willing to carry the burden that much of the legal minutia of the oral tradition required. Even Peter accused the Jewish leaders when he said:

Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

In fact Jesus continually reinforced his accusations against their unwillingness to maintain a consistency between their tradition and the written law:

Matt 15:14 "They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."

Matt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

The Pharisees would not live up to what they taught. They were so overly concerned with the externals that they neglected the "weightier matters of the law" and the simple truths about man and God. When their own Messiah had appeared in Israel they were so blinded by their observances and the minute details that they completely missed Him.


It is amazing that Jesus used the exact words of Isaiah, their great prophet, to describe their hypocrisy. Notice the quote from Isaiah 29:13:

Mark 7:5-7 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

The Pharisees were intent upon cleansing the outside of the cup and dish whereas the inside remained dirty:

Matt 23:25-26 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

He even accused them of being whitewashed tombs, disguising their inner corruption:

Matt 23:27-29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Outward self righteousness is the inevitable product of Pharisaic legalism. Jesus revealed their true motives:

Matt 23:5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men."

They were so filled with pride that they could not see that they would not practice what they had preached. In fact this was exactly what Jesus meant when He said "for they say, and do not do" Matt 23:3.

What is really amazing is that the Talmud reveals that hypocrisy was not unknown among the Pharisees. A famous passage in the Talmud denounces six types of hypocritical Pharisees (BT, Sotah, 22b), which speak of many of the same faults pointed out by Jesus.

The Talmudic literature clearly condemns pretense and hypocrisy (JT, Berakoth f. ix, 7; 13 ), and from this there can be no doubt that these vices constituted special problems for Pharisees.


This is an important point because the literature of the Pharisaic tradition in no way sanctions hypocrisy. In fact it is in agreement with Jesus, yet there can be no doubt that hypocrisy existed among the Pharisees during the time of Jesus but we must not make the mistake that the early writers of the oral tradition were all corrupt and blind.


It is also important to note that all of the Pharisees were not like those described in Matthew 23. The gospels contain references to Pharisees who were admirable men. Nicodemus is an excellent example of what a Pharisee ought to have been. He was genuinely a seeker of truth (John 3:1 ff.), spoke out for justice on behalf of Jesus (John 7:50) , and remained a follower of Jesus even after the disciples had fallen away (John 19:39) .


Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and he looked for the kingdom of God (Mark 15:43) , he was almost certainly a Pharisee, he also did not consent to the decision to do away with Jesus (Luke 23:51) . He was a disciple of Jesus "secretly, for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38) and he made final provisions for the body of Jesus.


There were no doubt many such Pharisees who believed in Jesus, yet probably secretly. Even those who were not necessarily believers could display admirable traits: Gamaliel argued for open-mindedness (Acts 5:34 ff.); others warned Jesus of an attempt on His life:

Luke 13:30-31 "On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, "Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You."

And others showed hospitality to Jesus (Luke 7: 36ff.; 11:37; 14:1) even though they were being accused by Jesus.

During the start of His ministry the body of Pharisees would have been interested to hear what Jesus had to say. They were interested to hear what any teacher in Israel had to say. The problem that they had with Jesus was His monumental claims and the authority in which He spoke. No man had ever spoken like this man, and no man had ever won the favor of the masses so quickly and so thoroughly. He even went so far as to claim that He was the very reason for Torah and the fulfillment of it. Their opposition against him grew to the point that they had plotted His death. When Jesus was to be arrested the Pharisees were among those that came to take Him away:

John 18:2-3 "Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons"

As shown here, Matthew 23 focuses on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

So I'm sitting here reading the thread, with all these wanna be christians and self acknowledged nonchristians decry Whittier's view.

You heard him ladies and gentlemen. He does not think that we are Christians because we do not believe as he does.


Well I got a better idea. How about FG turn his little gutterslut ass around and go back to that rock he crawled out from under.
You can KMAA.

And you call yourself a Christian :(

To the other participants:

You guys are right that I was being arrogant. Which is wrong on my part.

Nice of ya to admit that.

However, my version of Christianity is still the right version. I just have weaknesses, that most of the time prevent me from living up to that version of christianity.

Sorry but your version is not the right version. I don't believe there is a right or wrong version of Christianity.

Matthew 15:

. Then the Pharisees and the scribes came to him from Jerusalem and said,
2. "Why do your disciples forgo the ritual* of the priests and not wash their hands when they eat bread?"
3. Jesus replied and told them, "Why also you forgo the commandment of God for the sake of your ritual?
4. "For God said,

Honor your father and mother,
and whoever batters* his father or mother,
will die [the final] Death.

5. "You, however, say, 'Whoever says to his father and mother, "My offering is that which you receive from me," is not* honoring his father or mother.'
6. "And you have disregarded the Manifestation of God for the sake of your rituals.
7. "O, hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied well against you and said,

8. "This people honor me with their lips,
though their hearts are very far from me.

12. Then his disciples came to him and told him, Do you know that the Pharisees, who heard this manifestation took offense?"
13. However, he replied and told them, "Whichever plant that my Father in heaven did not plant, shall be uprooted.
14. "Let them be. They are the blind that rescue the blind; however, if the blind lead the blind, both of them fall in the pit."

Matthew 16

1. And there came to him the Pharisees and the Sadducees, testing him, and asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2. However, he replied and told them, "When evening comes,* you say that it is going to be sunny [tomorrow,] for the sky has turned red.
3. "And at dawn, you say, 'This is a wintry day, for the sky is light* red.' Hypocrites, you know how to discern the outlook of weather,* but the signs of this Age you are not able to discern.
4. "An evil and adulterous generation wants a sign and no sign shall be given it, except for the sign of Jonah the Prophet." And he left them and went away
24. Then Jesus said to his disciples,

"Whoever wishes to follow me,
...curse your being and pick up your cross and follow me.
25. "For whoever is enthralled* with his life, shall lose it,
...and whoever loses his life for my sake, shall find it.
26. "For what kind of thrill is it for a human being,
...if he gains the whole world yet loses himself,
Or what then does a human being receive in exchange for his life?

And since this whole thing started off with the issue of virginity and celibacy:

Matthew:19 (in context)

1. And as Jesus concluded these words, he took off from Galilee and came to the district of Judea, at the crossing of the Jordan river.
2. And great crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3. And the Pharisees approached him and tempted him and said, "If it is lawful for a person to divorce his wife for any reason."
4. He replied and told them, "Did you not read that he made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did he not?
5. "And it said, because of this a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become both one flesh.
6. "From then on they are not two, except one body. What God has thus united, a human being does not separate."
7. They told him, "Why did then Moses order that a divorce letter be given and divorcing her?"
8. He told them, "Moses, in response to the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your women, however, it was not so at the beginning of creation.
9. "However, I am telling you, whoever leaves his wife without a husband and takes on another, commits adultery, and whoever takes on a divorced woman, commits adultery.

10. His disciples said to him, "If there is such commitment between husband and wife, we should not get married."*
11. He told them, however, "This manifestation does not go down well* for everyone, except for the ones that it applies.*
12. "For there are celibates that were born from their mother's womb like this, and there are celibates who became celibate from humanity, and there are celibates who became celibate of their own free will,* for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Whoever can do without it, let them be without it."


There you have it. Jesus himself stating that not everyone can be celibate or abstain from sex. Of the kinds he spoke of, I am of the third kind.

Again referring to the commandments"
Matthew 19
16. And there came one offering himself and saying, "Benevolent educator, what good deeds shall I perform so I may have eternal life?"*
17. However, he told him, "Why did you call me benevolent? There is no one benevolent, except for One, God. If you wish to enter into Life [everlasting,] obey the commandments."
18. He said to him, "Which?" Jesus then told him, that you shall not kill, and you shall not fornicate and you shall not steal and you shall not testify in condemnation.*
19. "And honor your father and mother, and love your best friend as yourself."

he referred to the 10 commandments which are still in effect to this day.

You heard him ladies and gentlemen. He does not think that we are Christians because we do not believe as he does.




And you call yourself a Christian :(



Nice of ya to admit that.



Sorry but your version is not the right version. I don't believe there is a right or wrong version of Christianity.
Corneliu, though this post confirms it, I found from your previous posts that you are indeed not a true christian.

This post of yours, is contradictory to the teachings of not only the apostles but of Jesus himself.

Though I did not want to say that. The hardness of your heart forced it upon me.
You say I am false christian, yet you are unwilling to follow the true teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
A few of the things you were taught as a Methodist are wrong.

Some of the comments in my previous two posts are targeted at objections you raised.

Corneliu, though this post confirms it, I found from your previous posts that you are indeed not a true christian.

This post of yours, is contradictory to the teachings of not only the apostles but of Jesus himself.
And what gives you the right to determine? Some of us believe that only God can judge.

You almost did the right thing by admitting your arrogance. But then your pride got in the way again and you undid it all.

We all make mistakes. We all have to realise sometimes that what we believed isn't as obvious as we thought. Why do you think of yourself as so special that this doesn't apply to you?

And what gives you the right to determine? Some of us believe that only God can judge.

You almost did the right thing by admitting your arrogance. But then your pride got in the way again and you undid it all.

We all make mistakes. We all have to realise sometimes that what we believed isn't as obvious as we thought. Why do you think of yourself as so special that this doesn't apply to you?

Well, forgetting the fact that God has spoken to me in dreams, I am not so special.

You are correct that only God can judge.
But it is written in the scriptures "do not keep fellowship with unbelievers".

I do not judge. I only act and relate as the scriptures direct.

It is written that if a person follows heretical doctrine, that are contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught, we are to reproach them, and if they do not change their ways, to cast them out from among us.

The New Testament has much to say on the difference between a true christian and a false christian.
Therefore, when I say "these people wallow in sin" you take as coming from me. But it is the Bible that says that people who engage in such behavior are guilty of wallowing in sin.

I do not judge. Only God judges. I am only the messenger. A humble servant of the Lord.
When you hear that God calls things sinful, you seek to bash the messenger cause it offends you greatly. Because in your hearts you do not wish to give up your life of sin. Rather you seek to get others to embrace a life of sin as well that you may not be alone in embracing sin.

Well, forgetting the fact that God has spoken to me in dreams, I am not so special.

You are correct that only God can judge.
But it is written in the scriptures "do not keep fellowship with unbelievers".

I do not judge. I only act and relate as the scriptures direct.

It is written that if a person follows heretical doctrine, that are contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught, we are to reproach them, and if they do not change their ways, to cast them out from among us.

The New Testament has much to say on the difference between a true christian and a false christian.
Why do you confine God to the scriptures? He is not a circus animal that you can keep in a cage; you cannot pin him down and say 'this is what he does and does not believe.'

Scripture is just one way we can try and understand God. Ultimately, his greatness is beyond our mere mortal comprehension. Why, therefore, do you try so confine him to what you can understand as a human? Why not live your life as best you possibly can, and leave the ultimate judgement to the only one who can truly make it?

Corneliu, though this post confirms it, I found from your previous posts that you are indeed not a true christian.

This post of yours, is contradictory to the teachings of not only the apostles but of Jesus himself.

You, dear sir, are a false teacher. You have not only shown your true colors but have questioned those who are faithful to the Lord. I can only imagine that God has decided to use you in this way to test my faith in the Lord our God.

My faith is stronger than it has been. I have the Word of God on my myside.

"In the beginning there was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God."

And John 3:16--"For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son to die for us for so that who ever believeth in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life"

I believe that Jesus was God's son.

As Psalm 17 says: 1)Hear, O Lord, my righteous plea; listen to my cry. Give ear to my prayer-it does not rise from deceitful lips.
2) May my vindication come from you; may your eyes see what is right.
3) Though you robe my hear and examine me at night, though you test me, you will find nothing; I have resolved that my mouth will not sin.
4) As for the deeds of men-by the word of your lips I have kept myself from the ways of the violent.
5) My steps have held to your paths; my feet have not slipped.
6) I call on you, O God, for you will answer me; give ear to me and hear my prayer.
7) Show the wonder of your great love, you who save by your right hand those who take refuge in you from their foes.
8) Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings
9) from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me.
10)They close up their callous hearts, and their mouths speak with arrogance.
11)They have tracked me down, they now surround me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground.
12)They are like a lion hungry for prey, like a great lion crouching in cover.
13)Rise up, O Lord, confront them, bring them down; rescue me from the wicked by your sword.
14))O Lord, by your hand save me from such men, from men of this world whose reward is in this life. You still the hunger of those you cherish; their sons have plenty, and they store up wealth for their children.
15)And I-in righteousness I will see your face; when I awak, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness.

Though I did not want to say that. The hardness of your heart forced it upon me.
You say I am false christian, yet you are unwilling to follow the true teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
A few of the things you were taught as a Methodist are wrong.

Some of the comments in my previous two posts are targeted at objections you raised.

Define to me, oh wise one (yea right), what is your proscribe religion that makes you think that you, and you alone, are a true Christian.

Why do you confine God to the scriptures? He is not a circus animal that you can keep in a cage; you cannot pin him down and say 'this is what he does and does not believe.'

Scripture is just one way we can try and understand God. Ultimately, his greatness is beyond our mere mortal comprehension. Why, therefore, do you try so confine him to what you can understand as a human? Why not live your life as best you possibly can, and leave the ultimate judgement to the only one who can truly make it?
I do not confine him to scripture. Even if I wanted to, there is no way to do it. For the Lord is too big. As it is written of old, "Heaven is my crown, the earth is my footstool. No temple built by man can contain me."

It's not what he believes it's what he knows. He should know, he wrote all the rules.
You are right to say his greatness is beyond our mortal ability to comprehend.
Living my life the best I can is good. But it is not possible unless you have some kind of guide or directions. Life is a journey. Would you take a journey without a guide book? The Bible is the guidebook that God gave us. It reveals who he is and gives a small look at what he is like. Yet, there are those here, who reject this guidebook that came from God. They say, because it was written by someone other Jesus, it is not from God. They ignore that God uses people to pass on his commandments, his judgments, and in many cases, his blessings. He uses people to pass on his word.

You asked what makes me so special. The real question is what makes me so special or what makes you so special that either of us should disobey God will?

I do not confine him to scripture. Even if I wanted to, there is no way to do it. For the Lord is too big. As it is written of old, "Heaven is my crown, the earth is my footstool. No temple built by man can contain me."

It's not what he believes it's what he knows. He should know, he wrote all the rules.
You are right to say his greatness is beyond our mortal ability to comprehend.
Living my life the best I can is good. But it is not possible unless you have some kind of guide or directions. Life is a journey. Would you take a journey without a guide book? The Bible is the guidebook that God gave us. It reveals who he is and gives a small look at what he is like. Yet, there are those here, who reject this guidebook that came from God. They say, because it was written by someone other Jesus, it is not from God. They ignore that God uses people to pass on his commandments, his judgments, and in many cases, his blessings. He uses people to pass on his word.

You asked what makes me so special. The real question is what makes me so special or what makes you so special that either of us should disobey God will?
I live my life as best I can, and yes, you're right, that 'guidebook' is helpful in determining my choses. A 'guidebook' is very different to a 'lawbook,' however. It gives us a taste, perhaps, but ultimately, any human participation in divine matters immediately leads to the possibility of flaws and misunderstandings.

Only God is truly flawless; only he is without fault. And it is in only him that I will completely trust my life to. I will follow the words of the people of God but I will follow them with a critical eye, for they are not God. And I will never condemn someone for not behaving in the same way as I do, for I am not God.

Define to me, oh wise one (yea right), what is your proscribe religion that makes you think that you, and you alone, are a true Christian.
I follow no religion nor denomination. I follow and obey only the Lord Jesus Christ.
For it is written

1 Corinthians 1

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.
12
I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to 5 Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Kephas," or "I belong to Christ."
13
6 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14
I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15
so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16
(I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17
7 8 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
18
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
20
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
21
9 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
22
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26
10 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
28
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something,
29
so that no human being might boast 11 before God.
30
It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,
31
so that, as it is written, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."


1 corinthians 3

1
1 2 Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.
2
I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,
3
for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, 3 are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?
4
Whenever someone says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human?
5
4 5 What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.
6
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7
Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.
8
The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor.
9
For we are God's co-workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10
6 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11
for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13
the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
14
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15
But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.
16
Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy. 9
18
Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you considers himself wise in this age, let him become a fool so as to become wise.
19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written: "He catches the wise in their own ruses,"
20
and again: "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
21
10 So let no one boast about human beings, for everything belongs to you,
22
Paul or Apollos or Kephas, or the world or life or death, or the present or the future: all belong to you,
23
and you to Christ, and Christ to God.


All manmade religions are false. All denominations are false. There is only one true faith and that is the one that has been taught by the Lord Jesus Christ in person, and later, through his Apostles.

I follow no religion nor denomination. I follow and obey only the Lord Jesus Christ.
For it is written

1 Corinthians 1

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.
12
I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to 5 Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Kephas," or "I belong to Christ."
13
6 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14
I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15
so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16
(I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17
7 8 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
18
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
20
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
21
9 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
22
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26
10 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
28
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something,
29
so that no human being might boast 11 before God.
30
It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,
31
so that, as it is written, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."


1 corinthians 3

1
1 2 Brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.
2
I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now,
3
for you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, 3 are you not of the flesh, and behaving in an ordinary human way?
4
Whenever someone says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human?
5
4 5 What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.
6
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7
Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.
8
The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor.
9
For we are God's co-workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10
6 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11
for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13
the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
14
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15
But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.
16
Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy. 9
18
Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you considers himself wise in this age, let him become a fool so as to become wise.
19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written: "He catches the wise in their own ruses,"
20
and again: "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
21
10 So let no one boast about human beings, for everything belongs to you,
22
Paul or Apollos or Kephas, or the world or life or death, or the present or the future: all belong to you,
23
and you to Christ, and Christ to God.


All manmade religions are false. All denominations are false. There is only one true faith and that is the one that has been taught by the Lord Jesus Christ in person, and later, through his Apostles.

Ummm, I hate to interrupt here, mainly because the stuff you guys are discussing is going way over my head, but surely it is extremely arrogant to say that all denominations are false? According to you, they are false. I think more than a Billion Muslim and Jewish people might take offense at your labelling their religions as 'false'. Just saying...

I live my life as best I can, and yes, you're right, that 'guidebook' is helpful in determining my choses. A 'guidebook' is very different to a 'lawbook,' however. It gives us a taste, perhaps, but ultimately, any human participation in divine matters immediately leads to the possibility of flaws and misunderstandings.

Only God is truly flawless; only he is without fault. And it is in only him that I will completely trust my life to. I will follow the words of the people of God but I will follow them with a critical eye, for they are not God. And I will never condemn someone for not behaving in the same way as I do, for I am not God.
You are right to do so. But you must realize that even then, you are still are sinner. I, even though I have kept sexual purity, am also a sinner.
It is not possible for humans to take part in divine matters at this time.
They do not necessarily volunteer all the time. Rather, God uses us as tools willingly or unwillingly.

You are right not to condemn people, but you would be in error if you refused to condem the sin in their lives. Jesus said be a light. If, a person enquires to be christian or claims to be one, you are disobeying God by not illuminating the sin in their lives.
If you are driving in total darkness, can you avoid potholes without a light?
Likewise, if you are walking down a black alley where construction is going on, and both of your hands are full, can you avoid potholes without your friend carrying a flashlight or candle?

Ummm, I hate to interrupt here, mainly because the stuff you guys are discussing is going way over my head, but surely it is extremely arrogant to say that all denominations are false? According to you, they are false. I think more than a Billion Muslim and Jewish people might take offense at your labelling their religions as 'false'. Just saying...

It is not my label. It God's label for them.

There is one way to the Father, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is written in the Bible.

Tell me, would you call God arrogant because he saith these things?

I've been sitting back just reading what the rest think. I stopped posting cause I think I've pretty much put my views down.

So I'm sitting here reading the thread, with all these wanna be christians and self acknowledged nonchristians decry Whittier's view.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion even if it turns out to be wrong.

Then along comes some gutterslut with a nation called Forfania Gottesleugner who just jumps in with nothing pertinent and does the forum version of mad dogging the participants hoping to get some kind of a flame war started.

Well I got a better idea. How about FG turn his little gutterslut ass around and go back to that rock he crawled out from under.
You can KMAA.


To the other participants:

You guys are right that I was being arrogant. Which is wrong on my part.
However, my version of Christianity is still the right version. I just have weaknesses, that most of the time prevent me from living up to that version of christianity.


Note: The phrase KMAA or it's expanded version, Kiss My American Ass, is officially copyrighted, January 2006 by me.

I agree with your assessment that Forfania Gottesleugner (if I spelled it right) is offering nothing worthwhile to the debate. We agree on that, at least.

I agree that you were being arrogant, so we agree twice.

But, I do not accept your assertion that your "version of Christianity is still the right version". I have seen things in your 'definitions' of what it means to be Christian, that I find non-scriptural, and even against the teachings of Jesus, himself.

Godless heathen that I am, even I find your claims to 'truth' to be fatally flawed.

I agree with your assessment that Forfania Gottesleugner (if I spelled it right) is offering nothing worthwhile to the debate. We agree on that, at least.

I agree that you were being arrogant, so we agree twice.

But, I do not accept your assertion that your "version of Christianity is still the right version". I have seen things in your 'definitions' of what it means to be Christian, that I find non-scriptural, and even against the teachings of Jesus, himself.

Godless heathen that I am, even I find your claims to 'truth' to be fatally flawed.
The wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God.

It is not my label. It God's label for them.

There is one way to the Father, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is written in the Bible.

Tell me, would you call God arrogant because he saith these things?

I'd say your interpretation of such writings may be off, and be arrogantly used for justification. Besides, I'm sure in the Koran and the Torah there are passages saying that their God is the one true one and that all others (Including yours) are false. I can't see why they could be wrong and you right, just because you're a fundamentalist.

The wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God.
Then what gives you the right to claim that you are right?

Then what gives you the right to claim that you are right?

There. That's what I was trying to say in my roundabout way.

Ummm, I hate to interrupt here, mainly because the stuff you guys are discussing is going way over my head, but surely it is extremely arrogant to say that all denominations are false? According to you, they are false. I think more than a Billion Muslim and Jewish people might take offense at your labelling their religions as 'false'. Just saying...

Not just them. I take offense to what he thinks. He still hasn't told me what his faith is.

You are right to do so. But you must realize that even then, you are still are sinner. I, even though I have kept sexual purity, am also a sinner.
It is not possible for humans to take part in divine matters at this time.
They do not necessarily volunteer all the time. Rather, God uses us as tools willingly or unwillingly.

You are right not to condemn people, but you would be in error if you refused to condem the sin in their lives. Jesus said be a light. If, a person enquires to be christian or claims to be one, you are disobeying God by not illuminating the sin in their lives.
If you are driving in total darkness, can you avoid potholes without a light?
Likewise, if you are walking down a black alley where construction is going on, and both of your hands are full, can you avoid potholes without your friend carrying a flashlight or candle?
"Love the sinner, not the sin." It is something I have heard many times before. And yet it still makes an assertion as to what that sin is. There are many things that I believe we consider to be inheriently evil; child abuse is something I would place in this category. Choosing another faith is not, however, something that I believe God would consider to be a sin.

God created us the way we are. For God to then condemn us for being the way he created us is not the action of a loving God. You have clearly lived your life in the way you believe God has lay out for you; this is a cause for celebration, yes; it does not give you the authority to decide what God believes. Only God himself can do that, and only after this life can we see what his decision is.

Work with our Muslim brothers and sisters and those of other beliefs; respect their faith. Together we will be a much stronger force against evil than opposed.

It is not my label. It God's label for them.

There is one way to the Father, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is written in the Bible.

Tell me, would you call God arrogant because he saith these things?

Even though the Jews and Muslims believe in the exact same God as we do?

As Jocabia keeps making references to the pharisees, showing he has no understanding of who they were or what Jesus real relationship to them was, and seeing as he is not the only with a misinformed view of the situation between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Verses 1 to 3 make it clear. The Pharisees sat in Moses seat, therefore it was that we should follow their teachings. This is the words of Jesus. Jocabia likes to talk about only the words of Jesus matter. This is what Jesus said.
He only said to not copy their practices.
If you are a christian there are certain things you need to do.

Jesus called the Pharisees good teachers while calling them bad examples.

The question is not one of pride but one of hypocrisy. While you rail public against the sinful lives of others, how do you live in public? The issue is one of hypocrisy.

the pharisees cared about the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.



Matthew 15:1-9 "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men".

Jesus' issue with the Pharisees centred around the oral tradition. Their 'hypocrisy' was in making their TEACHING more important than the scripture itself. Indeed, in place of the word of God, he argued they taught 'the commandments of men'. I can't see how it could be any clearer than that.

He also says that they would "transgress the commandment of God by (their) tradition"... the tradition being the 'oral tradition'.

I think you are misunderstanding, if you are trying to convince that Pharisee means 'hypocrite'... Jesus called them hypocrites, but in [i]addition to their other 'sins'... the most important being replacing scripture with their 'traditions'.

I agree with your assessment that Forfania Gottesleugner (if I spelled it right) is offering nothing worthwhile to the debate. We agree on that, at least.

I agree that you were being arrogant, so we agree twice.

But, I do not accept your assertion that your "version of Christianity is still the right version". I have seen things in your 'definitions' of what it means to be Christian, that I find non-scriptural, and even against the teachings of Jesus, himself.

Godless heathen that I am, even I find your claims to 'truth' to be fatally flawed.

*jumps for Joy and makes a Joyful noise unto the Lord*

Well said GnI. You have hit the nail on the head

*hands GnI a plateful of cookies*

Corneliu, though this post confirms it, I found from your previous posts that you are indeed not a true christian.

This post of yours, is contradictory to the teachings of not only the apostles but of Jesus himself.

Though I did not want to say that. The hardness of your heart forced it upon me.
You say I am false christian, yet you are unwilling to follow the true teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
A few of the things you were taught as a Methodist are wrong.

Some of the comments in my previous two posts are targeted at objections you raised.

I disagree... you appear proud, you appear arrogant, you appear to have a haughty spirit... you appear judgemental, and you appear to have plenty enough sins of your own.

What Would Jesus Do?

I believe he would draw in the sand before you, and then hand you a stone.

Not just them. I take offense to what he thinks. He still hasn't told me what his faith is.

Fanatical Extremist Christian? I think you called him something beginning with P earlier on in the thread that seemed to fit well...can't remember now.

I disagree... you appear proud, you appear arrogant, you appear to have a haughty spirit... you appear judgemental, and you appear to have plenty enough sins of your own.

What Would Jesus Do?

I believe he would draw in the sand before you, and then hand you a stone.

Well said, GnI.

Then what gives you the right to claim that you are right?
I have no such right. Only God does. I just pass it on as commanded.

It is not my label. It God's label for them.

There is one way to the Father, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is written in the Bible.



You say it is written in the Bible... and I say your translation is flawed.

Take it back to the natve tongue, and you'll find that the passage you are quoting is actually CLOSER to "because" of me, than the common translations of 'by' or 'through'.

Jesus claims that the vicarious substitution is the required catalyst... which is different to claiming that the 'door' is barred to everyone outside of a certain persuasion.

I have no such right. Only God does. I just pass it on as commanded.

And how do we know you are not lying to us?

The wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God.

Which makes me wonder why you seem to claim it...

You say it is written in the Bible... and I say your translation is flawed.

Take it back to the natve tongue, and you'll find that the passage you are quoting is actually CLOSER to "because" of me, than the common translations of 'by' or 'through'.

Jesus claims that the vicarious substitution is the required catalyst... which is different to claiming that the 'door' is barred to everyone outside of a certain persuasion.

Your right.

Jesus came here not to save everyone but to save the Gentiles who were not jew. He gave the Gentiles a way to heaven and to see the Glory of God.

Now tell me Whittier, why would he do this if the Jewish God and the Christian God are NOT one and the same?

*jumps for Joy and makes a Joyful noise unto the Lord*

Well said GnI. You have hit the nail on the head

*hands GnI a plateful of cookies*

Like I said, I'm only doing it for the cookies. :)

Well said, GnI.

(Thank you, I just call it like I see it).

Matthew 15:1-9 "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men".

Jesus' issue with the Pharisees centred around the oral tradition. Their 'hypocrisy' was in making their TEACHING more important than the scripture itself. Indeed, in place of the word of God, he argued they taught 'the commandments of men'. I can't see how it could be any clearer than that.

He also says that they would "transgress the commandment of God by (their) tradition"... the tradition being the 'oral tradition'.

I think you are misunderstanding, if you are trying to convince that Pharisee means 'hypocrite'... Jesus called them hypocrites, but in [i]addition to their other 'sins'... the most important being replacing scripture with their 'traditions'.

replacing scripture with human tradition was included in his denunciation of them as hypocrites.

Nothing in this post says anything I don't already believe.

Your right.

Jesus came here not to save everyone but to save the Gentiles who were not jew. He gave the Gentiles a way to heaven and to see the Glory of God.

Now tell me Whittier, why would he do this if the Jewish God and the Christian God are NOT one and the same?
you err.

Jesus not just the salvation of the gentiles, he is also the salvation of the jews.
But not to everyone, only to those who willing chose to believe in him, and follow his commandments.

And how do we know you are not lying to us?
It is written: "if any man teach you things that we have not taught you, believe him not"

What I say is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

<reads until the following, then snorts morning coffee, snips, and gets busy>
To the other participants:

[1] You guys are right that I was being arrogant. Which is wrong on my part. However, my version of Christianity is still the right version. [2] I just have weaknesses, that most of the time prevent me from living up to that version of christianity.
<snip>
[1] BWAHAHAHAHA!!! *falls about in helpless guffaws* Oh, brother, this is priceless! This is one of the best posts I've ever read. Whittier to world: "OK, I admit I'm an arrogant ass, but I'm still better than you all!" Brilliant! Wonderful! *gasps for breath; wipes tears from eyes* Oh, Whittier, I really think I could come to love you just as much as a pet squid named Squidlems. Who would not want you in their social circle? Just the idea of sticking you in a room at a party, knowing that every so often you're going to splurt out stuff like this. It would be so worth it. Quick, where's a video camera? *imagines scene; starts falling about again*

[2] Well, my little Squidlems, I think you've already proven that well enough that it can go without saying.

you err.

Jesus not just the salvation of the gentiles, he is also the salvation of the jews.

No he was not as the Jews were the choosen people of God.

But not to everyone, only to those who willing chose to believe in him, and follow his commandments.

I believe the Bible says something about non believers getting into heaven by doing good works.

It is written: "if any man teach you things that we have not taught you, believe him not"

What I say is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

One Apostle. Singulare.

Well, forgetting the fact that God has spoken to me in dreams, I am not so special.

You are correct that only God can judge.
But it is written in the scriptures "do not keep fellowship with unbelievers".

I do not judge. I only act and relate as the scriptures direct.

It is written that if a person follows heretical doctrine, that are contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught, we are to reproach them, and if they do not change their ways, to cast them out from among us.

The New Testament has much to say on the difference between a true christian and a false christian.
Therefore, when I say "these people wallow in sin" you take as coming from me. But it is the Bible that says that people who engage in such behavior are guilty of wallowing in sin.

I do not judge. Only God judges. I am only the messenger. A humble servant of the Lord.
When you hear that God calls things sinful, you seek to bash the messenger cause it offends you greatly. Because in your hearts you do not wish to give up your life of sin. Rather you seek to get others to embrace a life of sin as well that you may not be alone in embracing sin.
Oh, you dreamed it. Well that explains a lot. How do you know you're not dreaming now? Maybe god is just testing you. In your dreams.

But I do have to commend the real art of this post, from the seamless way in which you announce what makes you special in the sentence in which you say you're not special, to the way you try to disavow your own words ("wallowing in sin") by fobbing them off on the Bible while you still use them, not once but twice (!), and finally down to your "I do not judge" intro to a whole paragraph's denunciation of our characters with a nifty "humble servant of the Lord" stuck in, like the cherry on top of a sundae.

And to think, the Republicans didn't want you in their party. Go figure.

I follow no religion nor denomination. I follow and obey only the Lord Jesus Christ.
For it is written

1 Corinthians 1

<snip for length>

All manmade religions are false. All denominations are false. There is only one true faith and that is the one that has been taught by the Lord Jesus Christ in person, and later, through his Apostles.
So Jesus is the author of Corinthians? I thought fundamentalists think god wrote the whole Bible.

It is not my label. It God's label for them.

There is one way to the Father, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is written in the Bible.

Tell me, would you call God arrogant because he saith these things?
We don't presume to talk to god -- just to you.

The wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God.
I'm willing to believe that, based on what you've shown me here.

I disagree... you appear proud, you appear arrogant, you appear to have a haughty spirit... you appear judgemental, and you appear to have plenty enough sins of your own.

What Would Jesus Do?

I believe he would draw in the sand before you, and then hand you a stone.
And then Whittier would throw it.

You, dear sir, are a false teacher. You have not only shown your true colors but have questioned those who are faithful to the Lord. I can only imagine that God has decided to use you in this way to test my faith in the Lord our God.

My faith is stronger than it has been. I have the Word of God on my myside.

"In the beginning there was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God."

And John 3:16--"For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten Son to die for us for so that who ever believeth in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life"

I believe that Jesus was God's son.

As Psalm 17 says: 1)Hear, O Lord, my righteous plea; listen to my cry. Give ear to my prayer-it does not rise from deceitful lips.
2) May my vindication come from you; may your eyes see what is right.
3) Though you robe my hear and examine me at night, though you test me, you will find nothing; I have resolved that my mouth will not sin.
4) As for the deeds of men-by the word of your lips I have kept myself from the ways of the violent.
5) My steps have held to your paths; my feet have not slipped.
6) I call on you, O God, for you will answer me; give ear to me and hear my prayer.
7) Show the wonder of your great love, you who save by your right hand those who take refuge in you from their foes.
8) Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings
9) from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me.
10)They close up their callous hearts, and their mouths speak with arrogance.
11)They have tracked me down, they now surround me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground.
12)They are like a lion hungry for prey, like a great lion crouching in cover.
13)Rise up, O Lord, confront them, bring them down; rescue me from the wicked by your sword.
14))O Lord, by your hand save me from such men, from men of this world whose reward is in this life. You still the hunger of those you cherish; their sons have plenty, and they store up wealth for their children.
15)And I-in righteousness I will see your face; when I awak, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness.

Let the morning bring me word of Your unfailing love, for I have put my trust in You. Show me the way I should go, for to You I lift up my soul. - Psalm 143:8


Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God; may Your good Spirit lead me on level ground (Psalm 143:10).

It is written: "if any man teach you things that we have not taught you, believe him not"

What I say is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
Who is this "we"? You mean, you? And which apostle are you again?

No he was not as the Jews were the choosen people of God.



I believe the Bible says something about non believers getting into heaven by doing good works.

Nay, they are judged by the law alone. They're good works will not get them into heaven. If all we need is good works, then our faith in Jesus is in vain.

He himself, and the old testament prophets wrote that he would the savior of Israel. But Israel rejected him because they wanted a conquering king to obliterate Rome and the rest of their temporal political enemies. Remember, the original christians, and Jesus himself were Jews.

He was the messiah that God had promised to Israel.

Let the morning bring me word of Your unfailing love, for I have put my trust in You. Show me the way I should go, for to You I lift up my soul. - Psalm 143:8


Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God; may Your good Spirit lead me on level ground (Psalm 143:10).

Psalm 18:1-3-- I love you, O Lord, My strength. The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call to the Lord, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies.

And later in vers 7 of the same Psalm: "The Earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the moutntains shook; they trembled because he was angry."

Verses 16-19: He reached down from on high and took hold of me; he drew me out of the deep waters. He resuced me from my powerful enemy, from my foes, who were to strong fro me. They confronted me in the day of my disaster, but the Lord was my support. He brought me out into a spacious place; he rescued me because he delighted in me.

It is written: "if any man teach you things that we have not taught you, believe him not"

What I say is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

No, it isn't and I've proven it. You twist the scriptures and pretend it excuses your bad fruit. You've been caught denying scriptures. You've claimed quotes of Jesus are not the words of Jesus but the opinions of the Gospel writers. You have amended the words of the Savior to bend it to your own will. Where in the scripture does it say be dishonest as long as it suits your purpose? I'll wait.

No, it isn't and I've proven it. You twist the scriptures and pretend it excuses your bad fruit. You've been caught denying scriptures. You've claimed quotes of Jesus are not the words of Jesus but the opinions of the Gospel writers. You have amended the words of the Savior to bend it to your own will. Where in the scripture does it say be dishonest as long as it suits your purpose? I'll wait.

Did you see the part about us not being faithful because we question the so-called "true faith"?

Let the morning bring me word of Your unfailing love, for I have put my trust in You. Show me the way I should go, for to You I lift up my soul. - Psalm 143:8


Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God; may Your good Spirit lead me on level ground (Psalm 143:10).
But I enjoy the way anything and everything you do is apparently guaranteed to be the work of your god even if it would be a sin for others. You are judgmental against others. You presume to define true religion to mean only your own (it's one thing if you want to consign me to hell, but all these other Christians? Really, W). You presume to know the will of god. You edit the Bible, which is supposedly god's word. You warn against false prophets and teachers who declare themselves to be true, at the same time that you declare yourself to be a true teacher. All of these things are specifically condemned by that very Bible. Yet as far as you're concerned it's all good -- because god told you so in a dream? Sorry, but I don't believe that your god gave you a pass on all these faults and sins just because you're "not special."

Who is this "we"? You mean, you? And which apostle are you again?
Galatians 1

8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10: Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
11: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Corneliu, though this post confirms it, I found from your previous posts that you are indeed not a true christian.

This post of yours, is contradictory to the teachings of not only the apostles but of Jesus himself.

Though I did not want to say that. The hardness of your heart forced it upon me.
You say I am false christian, yet you are unwilling to follow the true teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
A few of the things you were taught as a Methodist are wrong.

Some of the comments in my previous two posts are targeted at objections you raised.

You didn't want to say it? Does the TRUTH ever start in your mouth? You've been saying it since his first post in the thread. You've been claiming the authority that only Jesus has. Forgive me if I scoff at such arrogance.

You admit several times throughout the thread you are no authority, and by example, prove it, and yet you stand in judgment of others. My answer to that is this, and this alone -
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I leave you to others with more patience. You continually admit the folly of your pride but it continues unabated. You continue to claim the authority of the Christ. You continue to amend the words of the Christ. You continue to compare the words of men as equal to the words of the Christ. You have even gone so far as to claim the direct quotes of the Christ are actually just the words of men. I've made all the effort I'm willing to make here.

If you are truly a follower, I suggest you copy all of your posts into a word document. All of them, no deception. And take them to your church leaders and see what their reaction to your behavior is. You claim to trust their authority and not ours... fine. Then do so. Because I know of no Church, no matter how corrupt, that would support your behavior in this thread. NONE.

No, it isn't and I've proven it. You twist the scriptures and pretend it excuses your bad fruit. You've been caught denying scriptures. You've claimed quotes of Jesus are not the words of Jesus but the opinions of the Gospel writers. You have amended the words of the Savior to bend it to your own will. Where in the scripture does it say be dishonest as long as it suits your purpose? I'll wait.
And the false teacher of man made doctrines has returned.

Galatians 1

8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10: Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
11: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Oh, you mean like you've been doing throughout the thread? Can you show me which part of the Gospels that claims the quoted words of Jesus are just the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Because the Gospels themselves seem to say "Jesus said" and "Jesus told" and "Jesus declared" and such things followed by quoted speakings. They clearly suggest that it is IN FACT the quoted words of the Savior. Can you quote me the Word that says otherwise? I'll wait. Because if not, this passage points right at you, it's not one I'd like to answer to.

And the false teacher of man made doctrines has returned.

Man-made? Which MAN made the words of Jesus? These are the only words I lead people to, my friend. Meanwhile, I asked you a question, I ask that you offer an answer.

Galatians 1

8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10: Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
11: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Well, maybe I'm just a clueless heathen, but I did score highly in reading comprehension in school, and frankly, I read all this as an instruction to me that I should not listen to you.

This seems to be saying that only I can understand the gospel of god through direct receipt via a personal experience of god/Jesus himself, so anyone who comes and tries to tell it to me, I should just ignore. Anyone = you, in this case.

You didn't want to say it? Does the TRUTH ever start in your mouth? You've been saying it since his first post in the thread. You've been claiming the authority that only Jesus has. Forgive me if I scoff at such arrogance.

You admit several times throughout the thread you are no authority, and by example, prove it, and yet you stand in judgment of others. My answer to that is this, and this alone -
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I leave you to others with more patience. You continually admit the folly of your pride but it continues unabated. You continue to claim the authority of the Christ. You continue to amend the words of the Christ. You continue to compare the words of men as equal to the words of the Christ. You have even gone so far as to claim the direct quotes of the Christ are actually just the words of men. I've made all the effort I'm willing to make here.

If you are truly a follower, I suggest you copy all of your posts into a word document. All of them, no deception. And take them to your church leaders and see what their reaction to your behavior is. You claim to trust their authority and not ours... fine. Then do so. Because I know of no Church, no matter how corrupt, that would support your behavior in this thread. NONE.


You who claim to be so pure and righteous are no such thing. The house in which you live is made of glass.
You twisted the words of the Holy Bible. You have twisted to the words of the only true God, to support your man made doctrines.

Because of the hardness of your heart, you believe you are right 100% of the time. That is truely the height of pride, the source of all other sins.

<snip>I leave you to others with more patience. You continually admit the folly of your pride but it continues unabated. You continue to claim the authority of the Christ. You continue to amend the words of the Christ. You continue to compare the words of men as equal to the words of the Christ. You have even gone so far as to claim the direct quotes of the Christ are actually just the words of men. I've made all the effort I'm willing to make here.

If you are truly a follower, I suggest you copy all of your posts into a word document. All of them, no deception. And take them to your church leaders and see what their reaction to your behavior is. You claim to trust their authority and not ours... fine. Then do so. Because I know of no Church, no matter how corrupt, that would support your behavior in this thread. NONE.
Pssst. Jocabia, god talks to him in his dreams. Take it as a hint.

You who claim to be so pure and righteous are no such thing. The house in which you live is made of glass.
You twisted the words of the Holy Bible. You have twisted to the words of the only true God, to support your man made doctrines.

Because of the hardness of your heart, you believe you are right 100% of the time. That is truely the height of pride, the source of all other sins.

I'm sorry. I thought you were the one who was right 100% of the time because God speaks to you in your dreams...supposedly...and because your interpretation of the text is correct. That truly is the height of pride, the source of all other sins...

Oh, you mean like you've been doing throughout the thread? Can you show me which part of the Gospels that claims the quoted words of Jesus are just the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Because the Gospels themselves seem to say "Jesus said" and "Jesus told" and "Jesus declared" and such things followed by quoted speakings. They clearly suggest that it is IN FACT the quoted words of the Savior. Can you quote me the Word that says otherwise? I'll wait. Because if not, this passage points right at you, it's not one I'd like to answer to.

It points at you. You teach about scriptures about which you lack understanding. As you result, you spread false doctrine.

Well, forgetting the fact that God has spoken to me in dreams, I am not so special.

I declare this false. On the basis we are to judge the false prophet by their fruit, and your fruit is spoiled indeed, even by your own admission.

You are correct that only God can judge.
But it is written in the scriptures "do not keep fellowship with unbelievers".

I do not judge. I only act and relate as the scriptures direct.

It is written that if a person follows heretical doctrine, that are contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught, we are to reproach them, and if they do not change their ways, to cast them out from among us.

The New Testament has much to say on the difference between a true christian and a false christian.
Therefore, when I say "these people wallow in sin" you take as coming from me. But it is the Bible that says that people who engage in such behavior are guilty of wallowing in sin.

I do not judge. Only God judges. I am only the messenger. A humble servant of the Lord.
When you hear that God calls things sinful, you seek to bash the messenger cause it offends you greatly. Because in your hearts you do not wish to give up your life of sin. Rather you seek to get others to embrace a life of sin as well that you may not be alone in embracing sin.
You claim to speak for God and you don't see the PRIDE in such a statement. I deny your authority as the mouth of God. .

And by what measure do I come to the conclusion, by the same measure I was directed to use, but looking at your fruits. So far your fruits have been agression, pride, arrogance, judgement, claims of authority, declaring yourself a prophet, denying the word of Christ is the word of Christ. I won't judge for all, but for my money, I'm going with false prophet.

It points at you. You teach about scriptures about which you lack understanding. As you result, you spread false doctrine.

So, in other words, you have no answer. You claim I spread false doctrine, but I only post doctrine. Only one here has editted doctrine or claimed the words of Jesus are NOT the words of Jesus. Answer for your actions or do not. It makes no difference to me, false prophet.

You who claim to be so pure and righteous are no such thing. The house in which you live is made of glass.
You twisted the words of the Holy Bible. You have twisted to the words of the only true God, to support your man made doctrines.

Because of the hardness of your heart, you believe you are right 100% of the time. That is truely the height of pride, the source of all other sins.
I'm sorry, who are we talking about here?

FROM WHITTIER'S POST 265:
You guys are right that I was being arrogant. Which is wrong on my part.
However, my version of Christianity is still the right version. I just have weaknesses, that most of the time prevent me from living up to that version of christianity.

emphasis mine.

You who claim to be so pure and righteous are no such thing.

Quote me or admit you lie. Only one here has claimed to be pure or righteous and it is not I. I have made not such declaration. I have admitted I have no authority by which to judge the sins of other nor by which to claim special access to the Truth. You claim otherwise, but your actions evidence a different Truth.

The house in which you live is made of glass.
You twisted the words of the Holy Bible. You have twisted to the words of the only true God, to support your man made doctrines.

Have I? Show me where I pointed people to anything other than the words of Jesus. I can quote myself telling people to read the Bible directly and make their own decisions and I can quote you claiming the Authority of God, claiming to the mouth of God, claiming to be superior to your fellow man, amending directly the words of Christ and claiming the words of Christ are not His. Show your evidence of what you accuse or stop lying.

Because of the hardness of your heart, you believe you are right 100% of the time. That is truely the height of pride, the source of all other sins.
No, I don't. I believe I am not right. I believe you are not right as well. I believe none of us are good, not one. I believe that we find our path through examining our faith in the Christ, not through man.

Meanwhile, you claim to speak for God and call me proud. Interesting color the sky must be in your world.

The wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God.

Yet you are a man who claims to hold the wisdom of our Lord. Seriously, copy this whole thread and show it to your Church. I mean if you speak only the Lord's word here then you should have no fear in doing so. I'd be interested in hearing their reaction.

It points at you. You teach about scriptures about which you lack understanding. As you result, you spread false doctrine.
That's not the way I read it.

Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
Galatians 1

8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10: Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
11: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

"We" which I take to mean apostles and prophets, i.e. the persons writing the Bible, "angels from heaven" itself, and "any one" -- this passage tells me to reject all of these as teachers. That's a pretty broad group. I see no reason to include Jocabia in it but exclude you. After all, you're doing exactly what the passage warns me against -- you're trying to tell me what the gospel is.

The passage warns me against preachers precisely because I cannot know if they are doing it to please god or to please men -- in other words, do they really speak for god, or are they just on an ego trip? The passage gives no clue as to how to tell -- it just tells me to reject all who claim to preach the gospel to me.

Apparently I should reject all preachers and teachers because this particular gospel can only be received through revelation, i.e. direct experience. The passage specifically states that this gospel is not taught by or received from men. So why should I take teaching from you?

The Bible according to Whittier -

"Not everyone who calls me Lord (or claims to be a christian) is my disciple (or an actual christian). But only those who do my commandments." Jesus

The actual Bible -

Matthew 7:15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The gospels are the testimonies of the people who wrote them. Paul's is no less valid than theirs.

See how he claims the words of Jesus are not His, but simply the words of men.

The 4 gospels are just that. They are also editorials. They are not direct recordings of the words and actions of Jesus. Remember that they were written decades after Jesus had died and rose up to heaven.

What you are doing is going through the Bible like a smorgasborg. Picking and choosing only the parts that feel good to you. The Bible says you must accept all scripture for all scripture is from God himself.

Interesting how one can in the same breath say you must accept Gospels as the inerrant word of God and meanwhile say that the Gospels are not recordings of the words and actions of Jesus Christ, but instead editorials.

I believe my work is done here.

I'm finding myself facing the very real possibility that 'Socialist Whittier' is not what he claims.

I'm finding so many similarities with previous posters like VoteEarly and JesusSaves (or whatever they were called), that I'm becoming convinced that we are (perhaps) not dealing with what we appear to be dealing with...

I'm finding myself facing the very real possibility that 'Socialist Whittier' is not what he claims.

I'm finding so many similarities with previous posters like VoteEarly and JesusSaves (or whatever they were called), that I'm becoming convinced that we are (perhaps) not dealing with what we appear to be dealing with...

Except he claimed to be an actual person, Robert Canales. Unless this person is just a parody of Whittier and not the original poster. He seems to have a very similar style to Whittier and he has simply slow slipped into madness.

I'm finding myself facing the very real possibility that 'Socialist Whittier' is not what he claims.

I'm finding so many similarities with previous posters like VoteEarly and JesusSaves (or whatever they were called), that I'm becoming convinced that we are (perhaps) not dealing with what we appear to be dealing with...
It would be great to think that he's just a nut mucking about, but the fact is there are so many people who are really like him. I've met many of them over the years, and I really do think it's better to just wait until you die to sort it out; they will never move an inch in their positions. After all, God has told them what they believe, and so no mere human is ever going to challenge that.

Yes, it's incredibly easy to pick holes apart in their arguments, and as you've admirable showed in this thread their point of view is misguided at best, dangerous at worse; but they will never see this. Anything you say is going to fall on deaf ears.

Except he claimed to be an actual person, Robert Canales. Unless this person is just a parody of Whittier and not the original poster. He seems to have a very similar style to Whittier and he has simply slow slipped into madness.

Was Whittier a fundamentalist?

Maybe it's a 'persona'?

I'm finding myself facing the very real possibility that 'Socialist Whittier' is not what he claims.

I'm finding so many similarities with previous posters like VoteEarly and JesusSaves (or whatever they were called), that I'm becoming convinced that we are (perhaps) not dealing with what we appear to be dealing with...
There are people who do that on NS General?? OMG! :eek:

There are people who do that on NS General?? OMG! :eek:

I know. I was shocked, too.... ;)

No, SW apparently is Whittier. He said in a thread I read earlier today that SW is an old puppet created for fighting an old Civil War. When Whittier-- and Whittier--- got deleted for breaking some rule, he asked for SW to be reactivated as it had no 'Black Marks' as such.

Although I don't remember Whittier being so fanatical before this.

Was Whittier a fundamentalist?

Maybe it's a 'persona'?

Yes. http://www.geocities.com/canales4congress/#families

He toned down his positions for the purposes of gaining office (that's lying isn't it?), but he is most certainly a fundamentalist. He has often claimed authority in other matters and he claims that being accredited(to lazy to figure out how to spell that) is more important than simply evidencing your points (a typical fundamentalist position). That is the exact position he entered that first thread with, claims that unless you PROVE you have degrees and whatnot then you have no ability to make points on a matter whether or not you evidence your points and show your knowledge on the subject, he also holds the transverse to be true.

That's very Whittier. He's either the best troll I've ever seen or the actual Canales, who happens to believe he is the mouth of God and that God would approve of his denying the quotations of Christ.

No, SW apparently is Whittier. He said in a thread I read earlier today that SW is an old puppet created for fighting an old Civil War. When Whittier-- and Whittier--- got deleted for breaking some rule, he asked for SW to be reactivated as it had no 'Black Marks' as such.

Although I don't remember Whittier being so fanatical before this.

We're challenging his belief structure he believed could easily be supported with scripture. When we showed that it is counter to scripture, he slowly started to fall apart until he cracked. I honestly think we drove him to have a bit of a break from reality. In retrospect, I kind of feel a little bad. I think it's pretty clear that he has completely departed from scripture or really any logical extraction from scripture so he has to declare himself to be the voice of God or he can't continue forward. It's fairly classic, really.

Yes. http://www.geocities.com/canales4congress/#families

He toned down his positions for the purposes of gaining office (that's lying isn't it?), but he is most certainly a fundamentalist. He has often claimed authority in other matters and he claims that being accredited(to lazy to figure out how to spell that) is more important than simply evidencing your points (a typical fundamentalist position). That is the exact position he entered that first thread with, claims that unless you PROVE you have degrees and whatnot then you have no ability to make points on a matter whether or not you evidence your points and show your knowledge on the subject, he also holds the transverse to be true.

That's very Whittier. He's either the best troll I've ever seen or the actual Canales, who happens to believe he is the mouth of God and that God would approve of his denying the quotations of Christ.

For someone running on the issue of education, his numerous spelling mistakes and grammatical errors seem....ironic.

We're challenging his belief structure he believed could easily be supported with scripture. When we showed that it is counter to scripture, he slowly started to fall apart until he cracked. I honestly think we drove him to have a bit of a break from reality. In retrospect, I kind of feel a little bad. I think it's pretty clear that he has completely departed from scripture or really any logical extraction from scripture so he has to declare himself to be the voice of God or he can't continue forward. It's fairly classic, really.

You should never feel bad about helping someone confront false beliefs.

At best, you'll help them towards truth... at worst, you'll help them strengthen their belief.

We're challenging his belief structure he believed could easily be supported with scripture. When we showed that it is counter to scripture, he slowly started to fall apart until he cracked. I honestly think we drove him to have a bit of a break from reality. In retrospect, I kind of feel a little bad. I think it's pretty clear that he has completely departed from scripture or really any logical extraction from scripture so he has to declare himself to be the voice of God or he can't continue forward. It's fairly classic, really.

TG

We're challenging his belief structure he believed could easily be supported with scripture. When we showed that it is counter to scripture, he slowly started to fall apart until he cracked. I honestly think we drove him to have a bit of a break from reality. In retrospect, I kind of feel a little bad. I think it's pretty clear that he has completely departed from scripture or really any logical extraction from scripture so he has to declare himself to be the voice of God or he can't continue forward. It's fairly classic, really.
I've been operating on the assumption that SW is Whittier/Bob Canales from the start. I think his statements and attitude are consistent with the earlier poster.

But, like you, I am starting to worry about him. Maybe we should let this thread go. We are pushing him awfully hard, and I'm not sure we want to keep doing that.

I'm sorry. I thought you were the one who was right 100% of the time because God speaks to you in your dreams...supposedly...and because your interpretation of the text is correct. That truly is the height of pride, the source of all other sins...

Amen Skinny87. This guy is very prideful and we all know what happens to those who are prideful.

You should never feel bad about helping someone confront false beliefs.

At best, you'll help them towards truth... at worst, you'll help them strengthen their belief.
Or you might push them into a psychotic break and they could go out and shoot people. Remember, this is the Internets. We don't really know that we're not all just a bunch of lunatics talking to each other and ourselves.

It points at you. You teach about scriptures about which you lack understanding. As you result, you spread false doctrine.

We all lack in understanding the words of God. Even you. That is why we read God's word. We try to gain an understanding through the word of God.

I also see that you have stopped quoting me. I'll take that as a sign that I was right in the fact that you are a false teacher and a prejudice human being.

Or you might push them into a psychotic break and they could go out and shoot people. Remember, this is the Internets. We don't really know that we're not all just a bunch of lunatics talking to each other and ourselves.
:eek: I hope not. Then I would feel really bad.

Or you might push them into a psychotic break and they could go out and shoot people. Remember, this is the Internets. We don't really know that we're not all just a bunch of lunatics talking to each other and ourselves.

Well, I know I am not a bunch of lunatics...;)

:eek: I hope not. Then I would feel really bad.

I suspect someone would be MORE likely to go civilian-sniping, if they thought that they were the chosen 'hand of god'... than if they had realised they might not be...

I follow no religion nor denomination. I follow and obey only the Lord Jesus Christ.

As do I. As does Jocabia. As does Corneliu, although he may have chosen a denomination that he thinks is closest to the teachings of Christ.

The thing is that we are all flawed human beings, so, no matter how hard we try to get the message right, it is filtered through our own understanding and will be flawed. Yes, that includes you.

This means that we will have disagreements, as we are all working out of our own flawed perception. But none of us can righteously claim that we have the "right" version, as we all must admit our own flaws.

All manmade religions are false.

Then your own religion is false, as you are the one who created it. You did so, perhaps, based off of the teachings of Christ, but it is made by you in the end.

All denominations are false.

To a point, I am sure you are correct.

There is only one true faith and that is the one that has been taught by the Lord Jesus Christ in person, and later, through his Apostles.

And each of those Apostles taught a slightly different version of it. Each human being who reads the words of Christ gets something slightly different out of it - because we are all flawed and all do things through our own perception. Each denomination is based in those teachings, but with different understandings. Each individual Christian who follows no denomination attempts to follow those teachings, but will disagree with other Christians because of the flaws we all have.

The wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God.

And yet you claim that your own wisdom is "right", while everyone else's is wrong, ignoring the fact that any religion held by any human being is the wisdom of a human being trying to follow the wisdom of God.

:eek: I hope not. Then I would feel really bad.
Feh, go with it. Who would you rather talk to? ;)

I suspect someone would be MORE likely to go civilian-sniping, if they thought that they were the chosen 'hand of god'... than if they had realised they might not be...
And if they thought they were being closed in on by deniers who were trying to make them reject their divine mission... :eek:

Well, I know I am not a bunch of lunatics...;)
Speak for yourself. :D

Or you might push them into a psychotic break and they could go out and shoot people. Remember, this is the Internets. We don't really know that we're not all just a bunch of lunatics talking to each other and ourselves.
Uh ... there's a possibility we're NOT? OMG! :eek:

Speak for yourself. :D
But I WAS! [ shifty eyes ]

Uh ... there's a possibility we're NOT? OMG! :eek:
Despite what your wife tells you. :p

Despite what your wife tells you. :p
Well fry my fritters! What a shocking revelation! :D

TG

I replied by my browser screwed up, so I'm not sure if you got it or not.

As far as the thread, I believe my point is made. The more we called our friendly neighborhood prophet on his pride the more prideful he got.

I replied by my browser screwed up, so I'm not sure if you got it or not.

As far as the thread, I believe my point is made. The more we called our friendly neighborhood prophet on his pride the more prideful he got.

No - I'm afraid it got 'et by the browser. :(

No - I'm afraid it got 'et by the browser. :(

It just said that it's more than likely a consciencious objector discharge. It's quite common for people who are as nuts as this about religion to convince themselves they are the vessels of God because it suits their purpose of leaving the military or avoiding some other obligation, and they build up an entire belief structure around it and how they must be right. Attacking the belief structure creates the possibility that they will have to face up to their actions and take responsibility for them rather than blaming God, or Satan, or me or you.

It's also possible it was undisclosed medical, in other words he threatened suicide and rather than ruin his life, they gave him an uncharacterized discharge. Obviously we can only speculate.

By the way, I think I just go an abstract accepted to present my position on my business to nearly every major client in the business. It's about twenty-five steps above being published in terms of being recognized for your expertise in my area. It's exciting.

By the way, I think I just go an abstract accepted to present my position on my business to nearly every major client in the business. It's about twenty-five steps above being published in terms of being recognized for your expertise in my area. It's exciting.

Excellent. So - corner office and seven-figure-salary is just round the corner now, right?

By the way, I think I just go an abstract accepted to present my position on my business to nearly every major client in the business. It's about twenty-five steps above being published in terms of being recognized for your expertise in my area. It's exciting.

Sweet! Congratulations Jocabia. If the Good Lord wills it, you'll knock'em dead :)

I'll pray about it tonight :)

It just said that it's more than likely a consciencious objector discharge. It's quite common for people who are as nuts as this about religion to convince themselves they are the vessels of God because it suits their purpose of leaving the military or avoiding some other obligation, and they build up an entire belief structure around it and how they must be right. Attacking the belief structure creates the possibility that they will have to face up to their actions and take responsibility for them rather than blaming God, or Satan, or me or you.

It's also possible it was undisclosed medical, in other words he threatened suicide and rather than ruin his life, they gave him an uncharacterized discharge. Obviously we can only speculate.

By the way, I think I just go an abstract accepted to present my position on my business to nearly every major client in the business. It's about twenty-five steps above being published in terms of being recognized for your expertise in my area. It's exciting.
I think I know what you guys are talking about, but it's also just as likely that he failed the physical training or got into fights or had other borderline infractions. We can't know anything about that.

Congratulations on your career event.

It just said that it's more than likely a consciencious objector discharge. It's quite common for people who are as nuts as this about religion to convince themselves they are the vessels of God because it suits their purpose of leaving the military or avoiding some other obligation, and they build up an entire belief structure around it and how they must be right. Attacking the belief structure creates the possibility that they will have to face up to their actions and take responsibility for them rather than blaming God, or Satan, or me or you.

It's also possible it was undisclosed medical, in other words he threatened suicide and rather than ruin his life, they gave him an uncharacterized discharge. Obviously we can only speculate.

By the way, I think I just go an abstract accepted to present my position on my business to nearly every major client in the business. It's about twenty-five steps above being published in terms of being recognized for your expertise in my area. It's exciting.

or failed to many APFTs.

To Corneliu:

I have you know that I have not ignored your question as to my religion. The answer has always been no religion. However, I refrained from answering because your question relates very well to the accusations leveled against me, namely that be declaring all religions false, I remaking God's word or putting myself in God's place. The quick answer is that God is against religion.
Therefore all religion, including christianity are false.
However, it occured to me that because of the hardness of the hearts of the people in this thread, I had to consult God on this. Therefore, I left the thread to go pray about it. Because I knew the answer but I did not fully understand why. And God has answered my question, in a dream again.

I do not give you a particular religion that I follow, because if I did, it would be as fake as all the others. After prayer and meditation and scripture searching, God revealed to me, that all religions are false because they distract from the good news of what Jesus, the author of our salvation.
Even within the Christian faith, the denominations have made up rules that are not only not God's but actually promote and encourage false doctrine and hypocrisy. The denominations, like nonchristian religions, declare that you cannot be saved except through them. The Lord says, that the only way to salvation, is not the Methodist denomination or any other christian denomination, rather the only path to salvation is Jesus Christ.
All religions detract from this basic fact. Among Christians, they profess him with their lips but their very activities testify otherwise.

To the rest:
You call me arrogant for refusing to declare your version right and mine wrong. Yet, God has told me, that all of us in this thread are equally wrong.


Jocabia has been said to have won this debate, but he did so for the wrong reasons. He attacks me, so as to puff up his own self importance. If it really had anything to do with the sin of pride, he would have stopped his personal attacks awhile back when I admitted to pride. Instead, his own pride became puffed up and enjoying the attention he was calling to himself, he not only repeatedly the same wrongful interpretation of the verse he keeps qouting, but then he went on to engage in a political attack that had nothing to do with we were talking about. Before I came back on this afternoon, last night, in my dream, God revealed to me that he had done so. As you see I have given answer to his accusation on the matter. I speak the truth, not falsehoood as he claims.

He sincerely believes what he says. However, he lacks understanding of the scriptures. And because of his pride, refuses to accept any explanation of the passages and sheilds his eyes when light is shed on the passages. A christian cannot mature unless he be willing to take instruction, even from those he considers less than himself.
But all instruction must be judged as to whether they are in agreement with what Christ and his apostles taught us. If they differ, then the teachings are false.

I suspect someone would be MORE likely to go civilian-sniping, if they thought that they were the chosen 'hand of god'... than if they had realised they might not be...
A person who is truly the hand of God, would not seek to do violence. I have never sought violence against anyone. I have always been against it except when necessary to defend the lives of the innocent. (I don't mean fetuses, I mean the innocent who have already been born).

If God is against religion then why were the Israelites referred to as Jews all throughout the bible?

I don't thing God hates religion.

If God is against religion then why were the Israelites referred to as Jews all throughout the bible?

I don't thing God hates religion.
He doesn't hate religion. He hates the consequences of it: pride, jealousy, war, enmity, the loss of souls to evil.
We need not God's word, to know from faltering human experience, that religion has often ended up leading people to do things which are evil.

As for the Israelites being referred to as Jews, I am perplexed at your question.
I thought everyone knew this but since you asked, I looked for some weblinks to explain it to you.

There are two definitions of "Jew": racial and religious.
A person does not have to be a jew racially to be one religiously. Though I am not clear on why this is. I always thought Jews excluded nonjews from their religion.

The original word for the jews (the racial version of the word) in the Bible was Hebrews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

definition of a religious jew here:
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

the reason why religious judaism is wrong is already covered in Jesus ranting against the Pharisees who were the founders of modern day Judaism.

I posted the links to sites about the Pharisees in an earlier post yesterday. A couple of them referred to the Pharisees as the founders of modern day Judaism. Though, due to the fact that there is a more recent movement called reform judaism, I'm not sure if modern day is an accurate word but it describes most of modern judaism in the religious sense.


http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

I do not give you a particular religion that I follow, because if I did, it would be as fake as all the others. After prayer and meditation and scripture searching, God revealed to me, that all religions are false because they distract from the good news of what Jesus, the author of our salvation.

What you describe is not "all religion", but, instead, "all organized religions." The good news of Jesus Christ is, in and of itself, religion.

To the rest:
You call me arrogant for refusing to declare your version right and mine wrong. Yet, God has told me, that all of us in this thread are equally wrong.

I challenge you to find a single person who has suggested that you are arrogant because you will not declare their version right and yours wrong. That's quite a strawman you built there. You were called arrogant because you refused to admit what we all admit - that we are all fallible and thus none of us can say, "I am right and you are wrong." Based on that second sentence, you seem to now be agreeing to what we have been saying all along. We are all wrong. We are all fallible. And none of us can pass judgement on another.

Jocabia has been said to have won this debate, but he did so for the wrong reasons. He attacks me, so as to puff up his own self importance. If it really had anything to do with the sin of pride, he would have stopped his personal attacks awhile back when I admitted to pride.

Surely you know that saying, "Yes, I was being prideful," and then continuing to do so doesn't make everything wonderful. It's like saying, "Yes, I steal things," while you have your hand in the cookie jar.

He sincerely believes what he says. However, he lacks understanding of the scriptures.

Wait a minute, what happened to:

Yet, God has told me, that all of us in this thread are equally wrong.

Isn't that incompatible with you, yet again, saying, "Socialist Whittier is right and Jocabia is wrong"?

He doesn't hate religion. He hates the consequences of it: pride, jealousy, war, enmity, the loss of souls to evil.
We need not God's word, to know from faltering human experience, that religion has often ended up leading people to do things which are evil.

Welcome to the real world. You can have all of this and not be part of a religion. Like you for instance. YOu are very prideful and so full of yourself, I"m surprised you describe yourself as a Christian. A Christian is supposed not to be prideful. No true christian is prideful.

As for the Israelites being referred to as Jews, I am perplexed at your question.
I thought everyone knew this but since you asked, I looked for some weblinks to explain it to you.

Oh brother. You really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Really you don't. If you had to use links to answer the question then you are ignorant.

There are two definitions of "Jew": racial and religious.
A person does not have to be a jew racially to be one religiously. Though I am not clear on why this is. I always thought Jews excluded nonjews from their religion.

Tell that to Ruth and I believe the person's name is Rachel back at Jericho?

*snip*

I think logic is lost on Whittier. He continues to contradict himself.

To Corneliu:

I have you know that I have not ignored your question as to my religion. The answer has always been no religion. However, I refrained from answering because your question relates very well to the accusations leveled against me, namely that be declaring all religions false, I remaking God's word or putting myself in God's place. The quick answer is that God is against religion.
Therefore all religion, including christianity are false.
However, it occured to me that because of the hardness of the hearts of the people in this thread, I had to consult God on this. Therefore, I left the thread to go pray about it. Because I knew the answer but I did not fully understand why. And God has answered my question, in a dream again.

I do not give you a particular religion that I follow, because if I did, it would be as fake as all the others. After prayer and meditation and scripture searching, God revealed to me, that all religions are false because they distract from the good news of what Jesus, the author of our salvation.
Even within the Christian faith, the denominations have made up rules that are not only not God's but actually promote and encourage false doctrine and hypocrisy. The denominations, like nonchristian religions, declare that you cannot be saved except through them. The Lord says, that the only way to salvation, is not the Methodist denomination or any other christian denomination, rather the only path to salvation is Jesus Christ.
All religions detract from this basic fact. Among Christians, they profess him with their lips but their very activities testify otherwise.

To the rest:
You call me arrogant for refusing to declare your version right and mine wrong. Yet, God has told me, that all of us in this thread are equally wrong.


Jocabia has been said to have won this debate, but he did so for the wrong reasons. He attacks me, so as to puff up his own self importance. If it really had anything to do with the sin of pride, he would have stopped his personal attacks awhile back when I admitted to pride. Instead, his own pride became puffed up and enjoying the attention he was calling to himself, he not only repeatedly the same wrongful interpretation of the verse he keeps qouting, but then he went on to engage in a political attack that had nothing to do with we were talking about. Before I came back on this afternoon, last night, in my dream, God revealed to me that he had done so. As you see I have given answer to his accusation on the matter. I speak the truth, not falsehoood as he claims.

He sincerely believes what he says. However, he lacks understanding of the scriptures. And because of his pride, refuses to accept any explanation of the passages and sheilds his eyes when light is shed on the passages. A christian cannot mature unless he be willing to take instruction, even from those he considers less than himself.
But all instruction must be judged as to whether they are in agreement with what Christ and his apostles taught us. If they differ, then the teachings are false.

I've only got a couple of minutes but I have to answer this. You're upset because I won't YOU answer my questions about the scripture. I listen to scripture and God and no one else. You actually suggested that I go to church officials to get my questions answered and now you suggest you denounce all religion. What you say isn't God's word. God doesn't have to figure all this stuff out. He already knows. There would be no contradiction while he tries to figure out his position like there is as you try to figure out yours.

You are correct. We are all wrong. We are all authorities. None of us are good, not one. I said this pages ago while you were declaring yourself to speak the true word of God and determining who was and who was not the 'true Christiains'.

Your final post in this thread should say, if you had any humility, "I am not God and I do not speak for Him. I do not determine who and who is not a Christian, for this is for God alone. I do not stand in judgement of people, for this if for God alone. I apologize for my behavior in this thread, for my judgement, pride, arrogance, assaults and treatment of the scripture." That would be a true admission of what you've done here and what you should have done and if that was said or something similar you'd not hear anything from me other than praise for manning up. Instead every post excuses your actions, changes your positions, and declares yourself right about the scripture and everyone else wrong. All of use are wrong. Me too. The fact is that we were all admitting it while you were declaring yourself the voice of God.

A Christian is supposed not to be prideful. No true christian is prideful.

Don't be drawn into his mistakes. None of us are in a position to determine what is and what is not a 'true Christian'. Whittier is what he is. And how that will play out for him is between himself and God.

Regarding posts 374 and 375, I read them but I could not respond as my shift was over. I can only read and post on the forum during shift, cause that is the only time I can be online. So, as you should have noticed, there is a time lag between when I post and when most of you post.

Dempublicents1 (where’d you get that name?) wrote in post 374:

“Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
I do not give you a particular religion that I follow, because if I did, it would be as fake as all the others. After prayer and meditation and scripture searching, God revealed to me, that all religions are false because they distract from the good news of what Jesus, the author of our salvation.

What you describe is not "all religion", but, instead, "all organized religions." The good news of Jesus Christ is, in and of itself, religion.
Quote:
To the rest:
You call me arrogant for refusing to declare your version right and mine wrong. Yet, God has told me, that all of us in this thread are equally wrong.

I challenge you to find a single person who has suggested that you are arrogant because you will not declare their version right and yours wrong. That's quite a strawman you built there. You were called arrogant because you refused to admit what we all admit - that we are all fallible and thus none of us can say, "I am right and you are wrong." Based on that second sentence, you seem to now be agreeing to what we have been saying all along. We are all wrong. We are all fallible. And none of us can pass judgement on another.
Quote:
Jocabia has been said to have won this debate, but he did so for the wrong reasons. He attacks me, so as to puff up his own self importance. If it really had anything to do with the sin of pride, he would have stopped his personal attacks awhile back when I admitted to pride.

Surely you know that saying, "Yes, I was being prideful," and then continuing to do so doesn't make everything wonderful. It's like saying, "Yes, I steal things," while you have your hand in the cookie jar.
Quote:
He sincerely believes what he says. However, he lacks understanding of the scriptures.

Wait a minute, what happened to:
Quote:
Yet, God has told me, that all of us in this thread are equally wrong.

Isn't that incompatible with you, yet again, saying, "Socialist Whittier is right and Jocabia is wrong"?”

1. It depends on what you consider religion. To me, true Christianity is more a faith than a religion. It’s supposed to be more of a way of life. Christianity, the religious version, sums up one image to me: People sitting in church on Sunday warming benches and praising Jesus with their lips, then, as soon as church service is over, embracing sin. (I say sin in general). Focus on Christianity being a religion produces hypocrites who claim you can’t be saved except you go through their denomination. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life”. I’d give you the scripture, but I am typing this offline. Any Christian denomination that says you must be rebaptized into their church to be saved, is by defacto placing an obstacle between you and God. There is only one intermediary, that is Jesus.
2. You cannot ignore Jocabia’s arrogance in this respect. I admitted to being wrong. He continued to engage in personal attacks. His are nothing more that personal political attacks in what is inherently a discussion, not about politics, but religion. When I say something is against scripture, it is not based on my interpretation. For it is written that scripture is not open to individual interpretation. For example he quotes Matthew, he claimed the section was about pride. I didn’t get to post it yet, but if you look at all the commentaries, and concordances (a couple of which I will post after this), they support my position that Jesus chief bone with the Pharisees in that chapter was their hypocrisy. They claimed publicly to be doing things, when in reality they weren’t. They prayed in public, yet they weren’t really praying. They were just blabbing to make people think they were greater than they actually were. At the same time, they demanded that people engage in strict adherence to the rules that they themselves, paid only lip service too. What God looks at, is not what happens on the outside, but what happens on the inside. When you see a person praying in a public place, the issue is not where he is praying, but rather his sincerity. His intentions.
Actually I’ll post one of the commentaries after this post.

3. Saying, “he lacks understanding of the scriptures” is not equal to saying “I’m totally right and he is totally wrong”. I just have a better grasp of scriptures’ meanings because I’ve been in the faith longer and have had more time to mature. We are not all equal authorities. I know more about the Bible trhan many people on this forum, there are people not this forum who know more than me. There is a difference between those who are new to the faith, and those who have been around awhile. Jocabia’s authority on the Bible is not equal that of a priest, evangelist or missionary. That is what I am getting at. Neverttheless, we are equally wrong because we are both arguing from points of arrogance. It does not matter how much better we understand scripture than the other person, if we argue the point out of pride.

Corneliu wrote in post 375: “Quote:
Originally Posted by Socialist Whittier
He doesn't hate religion. He hates the consequences of it: pride, jealousy, war, enmity, the loss of souls to evil.
We need not God's word, to know from faltering human experience, that religion has often ended up leading people to do things which are evil.

Welcome to the real world. You can have all of this and not be part of a religion. Like you for instance. YOu are very prideful and so full of yourself, I"m surprised you describe yourself as a Christian. A Christian is supposed not to be prideful. No true christian is prideful.
Quote:
As for the Israelites being referred to as Jews, I am perplexed at your question.
I thought everyone knew this but since you asked, I looked for some weblinks to explain it to you.

Oh brother. You really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Really you don't. If you had to use links to answer the question then you are ignorant.
Quote:
There are two definitions of "Jew": racial and religious.
A person does not have to be a jew racially to be one religiously. Though I am not clear on why this is. I always thought Jews excluded nonjews from their religion.

Tell that to Ruth and I believe the person's name is Rachel back at Jericho?”

1. You mistakenly appear to be saying that all paths are equal. When Jesus said he is the only path.
2. 2. “You are so full of yourself” and “You really have do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.” As I have noted to Jocabia, you point a finger at me which actually points right back at you. You condemn yourself here. For you are essentially saying, “I’m completely right and you are completely wrong.” Which is what you were accusing me of. Jesus said, “Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone.” This is the second time you have done this. I said the nothing the first time, thinking it was just a random comment. This time I think you were intentional.
3. Rachel was from the family of Abraham. Besides, which, I haven’t studied Judaism as much of modern Judaism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. For example, they still wait for a saviour who has already come. And when he came, they rejected him.

I've only got a couple of minutes but I have to answer this. You're upset because I won't YOU answer my questions about the scripture. I listen to scripture and God and no one else. You actually suggested that I go to church officials to get my questions answered and now you suggest you denounce all religion. What you say isn't God's word. God doesn't have to figure all this stuff out. He already knows. There would be no contradiction while he tries to figure out his position like there is as you try to figure out yours.

You are correct. We are all wrong. We are all authorities. None of us are good, not one. I said this pages ago while you were declaring yourself to speak the true word of God and determining who was and who was not the 'true Christiains'.

Your final post in this thread should say, if you had any humility, "I am not God and I do not speak for Him. I do not determine who and who is not a Christian, for this is for God alone. I do not stand in judgement of people, for this if for God alone. I apologize for my behavior in this thread, for my judgement, pride, arrogance, assaults and treatment of the scripture." That would be a true admission of what you've done here and what you should have done and if that was said or something similar you'd not hear anything from me other than praise for manning up. Instead every post excuses your actions, changes your positions, and declares yourself right about the scripture and everyone else wrong. All of use are wrong. Me too. The fact is that we were all admitting it while you were declaring yourself the voice of God.
I denounce religion, but I still accept people in those denominations are authorities on scripture who know more than I. That is why I refer you to them.
There is no contradiction in my words, except to the blind who seek to lead the blind.
We are not all authorities. That is where you are wrong. You seek to make yourself equal in authority to the priests, evangelists, missionaries, prophets, and others who God spoke to, and told to spread their word. They do what God has told them to, yet you say "Because you are human like me, I will not accept anything you say as coming from God". Who are you to say who God can and cannot talk to? Who are you to say who is and who is not the voice of God? Is that not for God himself to decide? Who are you to say that you know more about God's teachings than God himself. This is not the first incident that you've claimed greater authority on a book or a writing than the original author himself had.
You are not in a position to claim such authority. Neither am I. That which I teach, I teach not on my own authority but on God's authority. It was God who directed me to teach these things. I have neither authority to teach such things on my own, nor do I have any authority to refuse to teach them. On our own, none of us has any authority to teach about the Bible or the teachings of Christ. Even the pastors and evangelists have no authority except what they get from God.
You proclaim all mankind an authority. I preach that only God has authority and that any authority that I or anyone else has, comes not from ourselves or our accomplishments, rather it comes only from God.
God has sent us pastors, missionaries, evangelists, prophets, and witnesses to tell us about him and his word. Yet you have consistently said throughout this thread, "If you are human, then I don't accept anything you say as coming from God". You even reject the apostles.
You are right when you say I have no right, on my own, to say who is and who is not a true christian. However, it is also incorrect to claim that anyone who says they believe in Jesus is automatically a christian. If a person claims to be a christian and behaves immorally, and God puts us in a situation to witness to them, or reprove them that they might be edified, then if we say nothing (for example: a christian is living a life of sin and we know about it yet we say nothing because we might come off as sanctimonious) then we are held accountable for our failure to try to bring the wayward sheep back into the fold after God told us to do so.
I fear not your judgment, nor your opinions, or any actions you might take. I fear and respect only God. For it is written, "do not fear them who are able to destroy the body, but rather fear him who is able to destroy the soul."
When the will of man contradicts the will of God, we ought to obey God rather than man. That is the choice I will always make.
It was he gave me my mission in life and it is to him alone that I am accountable to.

Though I should thank you for challenging my beliefs and making my faith stronger.

The word of God which the Supreme Pen hath recorded on the third leaf of the Most Exalted Paradise is this: O son of man! If thine eyes be turned towards mercy, forsake the things that profit thee and cleave unto that which will profit mankind. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself. Humility exalteth man to the heaven of glory and power, whilst pride abaseth him to the depths of wretchedness and degradation.

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 63)

The word of God which the Supreme Pen hath recorded on the third leaf of the Most Exalted Paradise is this: O son of man! If thine eyes be turned towards mercy, forsake the things that profit thee and cleave unto that which will profit mankind. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself. Humility exalteth man to the heaven of glory and power, whilst pride abaseth him to the depths of wretchedness and degradation.

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 63)
which religion is that from?

which religion is that from?

Bahai Faith! Ever hear of it?

O ye that have minds to know! Raise up your suppliant hands to the heaven of the one God, and humble yourselves and be lowly before Him, and thank Him for this supreme endowment, and implore Him to succor us until, in this present age, godlike impulses may radiate from the conscience of mankind, and this divinely kindled fire which has been entrusted to the human heart may never die away.

Consider carefully: all these highly varied phenomena, these concepts, this knowledge, these technical procedures and philosophical systems, these sciences, arts, industries and inventions -- all are emanations of the human mind. Whatever people has ventured deeper into this shoreless sea, has come to excel the rest. The happiness and pride of a nation consist in this, that it should shine out like the sun in the high heaven of knowledge. "Shall they who have knowledge and they who have it not, be treated alike?"[1] And the honor and distinction of the individual consist in this, that he among all the world's multitudes should become a source of social good. Is any larger bounty *3* conceivable than this, that an individual, looking within himself, should find that by the confirming grace of God he has become the cause of peace and well-being, of happiness and advantage to his fellow men? No, by the one true God, there is no greater bliss, no more complete delight.
[1 Qur'án 39:12.]

How long shall we drift on the wings of passion and vain desire; how long shall we spend our days like barbarians in the depths of ignorance and abomination? God has given us eyes, that we may look about us at the world, and lay hold of whatsoever will further civilization and the arts of living. He has given us ears, that we may hear and profit by the wisdom of scholars and philosophers and arise to promote and practice it. Senses and faculties have been bestowed upon us, to be devoted to the service of the general good; so that we, distinguished above all other forms of life for perceptiveness and reason, should labor at all times and along all lines, whether the occasion be great or small, ordinary or extraordinary, until all mankind are safely gathered into the impregnable stronghold of knowledge. We should continually be establishing new bases for human happiness and creating and promoting new instrumentalities toward this end. How excellent, how honorable is man if he arises to fulfil his responsibilities; how wretched and contemptible, if he shuts his eyes to the welfare of society and wastes his precious life in pursuing his own selfish interests and personal advantages. Supreme happiness is man's, and he beholds the signs of God in the world and in the human soul, if he urges on the steed of high endeavor in the arena of civilization and justice. "We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves."[1]
[1 Qur'án 41:53.]

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 1)

Bahai Faith! Ever hear of it?
no

no

Well you can't say that anymore;)

Whittier,

In the Bible it says that the Jews are the choosen one. It is highly possible that Bible scholars have misinterpreted the prophacy of the Messiah. It is highly possible that he didn't come to save the Jews at all but to come and save the gentiles, which would be us.

no
I'm surprised. Bahai is a quite famous and widespread religion. I didn't recognize its texts, but I had certainly heard the name before. Makes me wonder what else you haven't heard of. Tell me, SW, did you ever actually look at any of the religions you declare to be false? Or did you just accept the evidence of your dreams without question and go from there?

And while we're at it, if you reject all religions and practice none, with or without examination, then where do you get off telling Jocabia that he is wrong about how he reads and practices his religion?

I'm surprised. Bahai is a quite famous and widespread religion. I didn't recognize its texts, but I had certainly heard the name before. Makes me wonder what else you haven't heard of. Tell me, SW, did you ever actually look at any of the religions you declare to be false? Or did you just accept the evidence of your dreams without question and go from there?

And while we're at it, if you reject all religions and practice none, with or without examination, then where do you get off telling Jocabia that he is wrong about how he reads and practices his religion?
I too have heard the name before. But that is not really the same as knowing about it. If you know about it, that does not mean you know something about what it teaches.

I've only seen it on a christian website listed as a cult.

Whittier,

In the Bible it says that the Jews are the choosen one. It is highly possible that Bible scholars have misinterpreted the prophacy of the Messiah. It is highly possible that he didn't come to save the Jews at all but to come and save the gentiles, which would be us.
That is what they said that Jesus and his disciples did was that they were wrong.

That is what they said that Jesus and his disciples did was that they were wrong.

Who was wrong?

I too have heard the name before. But that is not really the same as knowing about it. If you know about it, that means you know something about what it teaches.

I've only seen it on a christian website listed as a cult.

The Baha'i Faith is in very good company then because Christianity was considered a cult at one time also.

Whittier,

In the Bible it says that the Jews are the choosen one. It is highly possible that Bible scholars have misinterpreted the prophacy of the Messiah. It is highly possible that he didn't come to save the Jews at all but to come and save the gentiles, which would be us.

Do you think that "choosen one" is a title bestowed for life or a designation of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the "Voice of God" in the "Day of the Message from God".

Who was wrong?
the jews were saying that Jesus was wrong

[/PHP]

The Baha'i Faith is in very good company then because Christianity was considered a cult at one time also.
That should have read: "does not mean you know what it teaches"

That should have read: "does not mean you know what it teaches"

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?

Do you think that "choosen one" is a title bestowed for life or a designation of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the "Voice of God" in the "Day of the Message from God".

I believe that it is a title bestowed for life as the Bible called Jesus the Choosen one time and again.

I believe that it is a title bestowed for life as the Bible called Jesus the Choosen one time and again.
The title for Jesus certianly; but, the "choosen people" even if they reject the message?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here?
I just noting that I had to correct my post. It should have said "Just because you heard of it, does not mean you know its teachings."
What it had said instead was "Just because you heard about it, means you know its teachings."

The title for Jesus certianly; but, the "choosen people" even if they reject the message?

In the old testiment, the Jews were called the choosen People. I still believe that they are.

I've only seen it on a christian website listed as a cult.

Thus, obviously, you dismiss it out-of-hand?

Thus, obviously, you dismiss it out-of-hand?
As I dismiss all religion.

As I dismiss all religion.

You need to make up your mind, my friend....

Paid too much attention to your own hype, maybe?

I too have heard the name before. But that is not really the same as knowing about it. If you know about it, that does not mean you know something about what it teaches.

I've only seen it on a christian website listed as a cult.
You didn't answer my questions.

1. Did you reject all religions after having experience with them or did you just take your personal experiences as a sui generis message direct from god to you, without checking to see if there might already be other people in the world who agree with you? I just want to figure out if you are a Christian or a "Whittierist."

2. If you do not practice religions, then why are you criticizing how Jocabia understands and practices his religion? How can you single Jocabia out to be wrong, if you think all religions are wrong to begin with? And if you don't practice Jocabia's religion, why do you care how he understands or practices it?

3. And while we're at it, I'll add a new one: If you reject all religions and follow none, then why are you looking up "cults" on a "Christian" website? Why even visit one?

You need to make up your mind, my friend....

Paid too much attention to your own hype, maybe?
You lack full understanding, true christianity is not about religion. It's a way of life.

You lack full understanding, true christianity is not about religion. It's a way of life.

Christianity is a religion :rolleyes:

You didn't answer my questions.

1. Did you reject all religions after having experience with them or did you just take your personal experiences as a sui generis message direct from god to you, without checking to see if there might already be other people in the world who agree with you? I just want to figure out if you are a Christian or a "Whittierist."

2. If you do not practice religions, then why are you criticizing how Jocabia understands and practices his religion? How can you single Jocabia out to be wrong, if you think all religions are wrong to begin with? And if you don't practice Jocabia's religion, why do you care how he understands or practices it?

3. And while we're at it, I'll add a new one: If you reject all religions and follow none, then why are you looking up "cults" on a "Christian" website? Why even visit one?

To find out if Muravyetism was a cult. If something is listed as a cult then it is considered by christians to be a false religion.

You lack full understanding, true christianity is not about religion. It's a way of life.

And yet, you were preaching to us about the value of church authority.

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, now. No one forgets their OWN 'religion'...

Christianity is a religion :rolleyes:
christianity the man made version is false.
That which is taught by Christ and his apostles is true.
If you cannot discern the clear difference between the two, are you sure you are saved?

And yet, you were preaching to us about the value of church authority.

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, now. No one forgets their OWN 'religion'...
There is a true christianity and a false christianity. As it is written, many anti christs are gone out in to the world and decieve many.
Those to whome God speaks will know the difference.

christianity the man made version is false.
That which is taught by Christ and his apostles is true.
If you cannot discern the clear difference between the two, are you sure you are saved?

Do not question my faith S.W. I am saved.

Do not question my faith S.W. I am saved.
You say that you are saved yet you take offense when your faith is questioned
Answer my question, can you discern true christianity from false christianity?
Are you sure you are saved? If you are, then you would not be offended at your faith being questioned.
Tell me now, why are you offended at your faith being questioned?

To find out if Muravyetism was a cult. If something is listed as a cult then it is considered by christians to be a false religion.
Why do you care what a religious group thinks, if you don't follow their religion? Why are you seeking any kind of guidance from them?

There is a true christianity and a false christianity. As it is written, many anti christs are gone out in to the world and decieve many.
Those to whome God speaks will know the difference.
The thread has lapped itself. Here we are, right back at the beginning, with SW declaring to know what constitutes "true christianity." No matter how we slice him, he comes up prideful.

christianity the man made version is false.
That which is taught by Christ and his apostles is true.
If you cannot discern the clear difference between the two, are you sure you are saved?
And what makes you think you can discern the clear difference between the two?

There is no salvation in any one church or religion but only in Jesus. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

There is no salvation in any one church or religion but only in Jesus. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Nice misinterpretation my friend.

What the verse is saying is that there is no other savior of man but God. That does not exclude other religions who believe in God but under a different name of God.

And what makes you think you can discern the clear difference between the two?
The Bible tells me the difference between the two.

In the old testiment, the Jews were called the choosen People. I still believe that they are.

So then the question, it seems to me, is choosen for what? Choosen to live on a piece of land? If there is anything we should be able to agree on it is that each religion teaches that the real purpose of this life is preparation for the next. So the Jews were "Choosen" to hear the Messengers of Gods words.

Nice misinterpretation my friend.

What the verse is saying is that there is no other savior of man but God. That does not exclude other religions who believe in God but under a different name of God.
No, he didn't, because you are obviously a false prophet. (in his eyes)

Nice misinterpretation my friend.

What the verse is saying is that there is no other savior of man but God. That does not exclude other religions who believe in God but under a different name of God.
That is not what the scripture says nor is it what your own denomination or any christian denomination teaches

So then the question, it seems to me, is choosen for what? Choosen to live on a piece of land? If there is anything we should be able to agree on it is that each religion teaches that the real purpose of this life is preparation for the next. So the Jews were "Choosen" to hear the Messengers of Gods words.

I think that there is mixed thoughts on this throughout the Bible Community.

The Bible tells me the difference between the two.
The Bible in bookstores, or the one in your dreams?

Because there seems to be a lot of disagreement with your interpretations of the one in the bookstores.

That is not what the scripture says nor is it what your own denomination or any christian denomination teaches

So you speak for my Denomination now? When where you made head of my denomination?

No, he didn't, because you are obviously a false prophet. (in his eyes)

In his eyes, I'm not saved.

No, he didn't, because you are obviously a false prophet. (in his eyes)
He's not a false prophet for he never made a claim to recieve dreams or revelations from God.
Nor is he necessarily a false teacher. He just doesn't understand what his own religion teaches.

He's not a false prophet for he never made a claim to recieve dreams or revelations from God.

Oh I have received dreams Socialist Whittier. I just keep them to myself as most of what I dream about affects me as a person. It is rare that I tell my dreams to others.

Nor is he necessarily a false teacher. He just doesn't understand what his own religion teaches.

Do not ever speak for me again.

There is a true christianity and a false christianity. As it is written, many anti christs are gone out in to the world and decieve many.
Those to whome God speaks will know the difference.

Utterly irrelevent to what I said.

If you want to preach, preach. Just don't pretend it is a reply to one of my posts.

Earlier, you claimed the authority of church heirarchy... and now you disclaim ALL churches.

You either forget your own alleged denomination, or you have been less than honest.

So you speak for my Denomination now? When where you made head of my denomination?
I am head of no denomination. Yet, your denomination would not accept that Buddhism or Raelism are equal paths to salvation with Jesus Christ as you say you believe they are.

I am head of no denomination. Yet, your denomination would not accept that Buddhism or Raelism are equal paths to salvation with Jesus Christ as you say you believe they are.

When in the name that is Holy did I say that? I said that GOD GOES BY DIFFERENT NAMES.

In his eyes, I'm not saved.
I never said that. I only questioned your faith. If that bothers you then how can you say you are saved?

I think that there is mixed thoughts on this throughout the Bible Community.

Yes, I am sure there are mixed thoughts on just what "Choosen People" means. And isn't that a core problems inside of Christianity, Islam and many other religions. That core problem being that anyone can interpet and declare they know what the Holy Texts mean. And then insist that others must believe what they believe.

I never said that. I only questioned your faith. If that bothers you then how can you say you are saved?

I can say that I am saved because I know that I am saved. Unlike you who thinks he is the authority on all that is God, I do not claim to know everything. I read my bible and I study it. I take comfort in the Word of God.

Yes, I am sure there are mixed thoughts on just what "Choosen People" means. And isn't that a core problems inside of Christianity, Islam and many other religions. That core problem being that anyone can interpet and declare they know what the Holy Texts mean. And then insist that others must believe what they believe.

I agree 100% with this assessment. that is why we have so many problems with religious fundamentalism of all kinds.

When in the name that is Holy did I say that? I said that GOD GOES BY DIFFERENT NAMES.
Those two were examples that I used because you said that all religions were equal and the same.

He's not a false prophet for he never made a claim to recieve dreams or revelations from God.
Nor is he necessarily a false teacher. He just doesn't understand what his own religion teaches.
A judgmental remark based in PRIDE because it cannot be made unless you assume that you know better than he does what his religion has taught him.

Those two were examples that I used because you said that all religions were equal and the same.

And I believe that they are. According to God's teachings we are to love our neighbor. We are also taught to be TOLERANT of others.

By listening to you, I can tell that you do not tolerate those that do not subscribe to what you believe. That is being a false christian.

I agree 100% with this assessment. that is why we have so many problems with religious fundamentalism of all kinds.

So then is this an answer? Because if you say you are a Believer you must believe there is an answer!


The Bahá'í Faith upholds the unity of God, recognizes the unity of His Prophets, and inculcates the principle of the oneness and wholeness of the entire human race. It proclaims the necessity and the inevitability of the unification of mankind, asserts that it is gradually approaching, and claims that nothing short of the transmuting spirit of God, working through His chosen Mouthpiece in this day, can ultimately succeed in bringing it about. It, moreover, enjoins upon its followers the primary duty of an unfettered search after truth, condemns all manner of prejudice and superstition, declares the purpose of religion to be the promotion of amity and concord, proclaims its essential harmony with science, and recognizes it as the foremost agency for the pacification and the orderly progress of human society....

(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. v)

A judgmental remark based in PRIDE because it cannot be made unless you assume that you know better than he does what his religion has taught him.
No. I'm just saying he should go back and research what his denomination believes. How can that be based on PRIDE on my part?

And I believe that they are. According to God's teachings we are to love our neighbor. We are also taught to be TOLERANT of others.

By listening to you, I can tell that you do not tolerate those that do not subscribe to what you believe. That is being a false christian.
Hmmm. If that is true then why am I talking to you and GnI and Jocabia?

Tolerance does not mean you believe every other religion is just as right as yours. Tolerance is living with and cooperating with people who are different from you or have different beliefs then you without persecuting and discriminating against them.
I have friends of many different religions. I believe they are wrong and they know that. I still enjoy spending time with them and such. Does this make me intolerant?

We're all sinners and we need to realize that. I don't alienate myself from them because I know it could be through me that Jesus gets through to them.

If "tolerant" to the non-christian world means I have to compromise Biblical truth to be your friend, that's where the friendship ends. After that, we are just acquaintances.

Your comment is like going up to a white man sitting with a bunch of black people and calling him a racist. It's rediculous.

What you should understand is that while none of us can ever measure up 100 percent with God's standard of holiness, because we will at times lose our temper, or have an evil thought, there is a difference in that and someone that is a wilful sinner. Non-Christians sin by nature. Jesus gave those who are born again a new nature, and we are going against it when we choose to willfully do wrong.

christianity the man made version is false.
That which is taught by Christ and his apostles is true.
If you cannot discern the clear difference between the two, are you sure you are saved?

That which is taught by Jesus and his apostles is true? You mean Judaism?

Jesus said he came only for Jews, the lost sheep of Israel, and referred to gentiles as "dogs" - a Semitic racial slur. The only reason Christianity gained any influence among the Goy population was due to Paul. Jesus and his apostles taught a Jew-only extremist version of Judaism.

If you aren't a Jew then you aren't practicing that which was taught by Jesus, you're practicing the later Pauline "man made version" or whatever you would like to call it.

There are lots of things Christians today use that Jesus didn't advocate - like a New Testament.

Your comment is like going up to a white man sitting with a bunch of black people and calling him a racist. It's rediculous.

Funny analogy. Christians are like white men sitting with a bunch of black people but telling them "you all need to be white like me." Its an inherently bigoted and exclusive religion that espouses discrimination on par with racism.

That which is taught by Jesus and his apostles is true? You mean Judaism?

Jesus said he came only for Jews, the lost sheep of Israel, and referred to gentiles as "dogs" - a Semitic racial slur. The only reason Christianity gained any influence among the Goy population was due to Paul. Jesus and his apostles taught a Jew-only extremist version of Judaism.

If you aren't a Jew then you aren't practicing that which was taught by Jesus, you're practicing the later Pauline "man made version" or whatever you would like to call it.

There are lots of things Christians today use that Jesus didn't advocate - like a New Testament.

John 3:16--> For God so loved the WORLD he gave his only begotten Son to die for us for so that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

John 3:16--> For God so loved the WORLD he gave his only begotten Son to die for us for so that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

Keep in mind that each gospel was written anonymously. The names attributed to them were given during canonization based on church tradition - they are pseudopigraphic. What you have there are the words of some anonymous author who later had the name 'John' attributed to them, not the words of Jesus.

Jesus said he came only for Israel and called Goyim dogs. Nowhere did he say that he came to save Goyim, nor will you find that among Jesus' message. You can find that among Paul's message, and the pseudopigraphc stories woven around Jesus, but you wont find it in the words of Jesus themselves. Quite the contrary.

Keep in mind that each gospel was written anonymously.

Would you mine backing up that statement?

Jesus said he came only for Israel and called Goyim dogs.

Again care to back up that statement?

Nowhere did he say that he came to save Goyim, nor will you find that among Jesus' message.

Just like I don't see what your saying about Jesus being an extremist and excluding everyone else who is not a Jew. I'm just not seeing it.

You can find that among Paul's message, and the pseudopigraphc stories woven around Jesus, but you wont find it in the words of Jesus themselves. Quite the contrary.

Are you Whittier incarnate?

Would you mine backing up that statement?


It certainly IS true of John... the original scripture was unnamed, and doesn't even allude to the identity of the author internally, really.

Would you mine backing up that statement?

The names attributed to them were given during canonization based on church tradition - they are pseudopigraphic. What you have there are the words of some anonymous author who later had the name 'John' attributed to them, not the words of Jesus.

The names of the authors aren't included in the actual text anywhere. When you read "Gospel of John" on the front of your English Bible, and on the top right hand corners, those are the things that were added by the publishing company and first attributed during Biblical canonization. Because the actual text contains the names of the authors nowhere, that makes them anonymous.

If that isn't clear enough, allow me to reference from a text from Yale Divinity School, From Jesus to Christianity L. White.

"That the author was the apostle John, sone of Zebedee, has been the "official" attribution at least since the time of Irenaeus in the later second century. Even so, there were doubts and debates through the third and fourth centuries betcause the Gospel was so popular among the Gnostic Christians. Other allusions to the text are rare in the second century. The problem is that the name of the author and direct reference to the apostle John are missing from the narrative. As with all of the Gospels, the titles were added later as the books were being compiled into formal collections."

So there we have it, from a text from Yale Divinity, exactly as I told you. While there was church tradition that attributed the gospel to John (even though this only occured some hundred years later, as seen above) we really don't know who the author is. Its anonymous, yet it has an author attributed to it, and thus is pseudopigraphic.

Again care to back up that statement?

That Jesus said he came only for Israel and called Goyim dogs? Sure, although you should know this from a cursory reading of the gospels. It isn't something you have to research to find out, like the authorship of the gospels above.

Matthew 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 15:26 "He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Now, keep in mind that "dog" is a Semitic racial slur. The fact that it occurs in the same narrative as Jesus saying he came only for Israel makes this even more clear. He draws a clear racist dichotomy between Jews and Goyim, using a racial slur for the latter while saying he was sent only for the former. Also keep in mind that Jesus never taught what Paul did - that Goyim were "grafted on" or any such thing that made them part of Israel as well. That teaching came much later, when the Jesus movement took off among Goyim.

Just like I don't see what your saying about Jesus being an extremist and excluding everyone else who is not a Jew. I'm just not seeing it.

You don't see it probably because it isn't the popular image of Jesus that is portrayed. When the gospels, and Jesus, are evaluated in their cultural and historical contexts that is what we see though. Calling a Goy a dog is a good example of this - most people don't know, without being familiar with the culture and history, that it was a racial slur. Reading Jesus say it in English almost sounds cute.

You say I am being arrogant by saying that not all people who claim to be christian or know the Bible or believe in Jesus are christian.

The Bible also teaches that not all church members are Christians. Joining some denomination does not make one a Christian. Having one's name on some denominational membership roll does not make one a Christian.

The New Testament does not recognize denominationalism, but it does recognize the one body of Christ. The Lord promised, "Upon this rock I will build my church" -- not "my denominations" (Matt. 16:81). This church was established on the day of Pentecost, and the Lord added the saved to this church (Acts 2:47). Denominationalism and division are contrary to the spirit of New Testament Christianity. They are contrary to the letter of the New Testament, for Paul says, "There is one body" (Eph. 4:4), and this body is the church (Eph. 1:22, 23). Every member of the body of Christ is a Christian, but this cannot be said of denominations founded by men.

No, not all church members are Christians.


The New Testament teaches that not all believers in Christ are Christians. You may believe in Christ, that he is the Son of. God, and still not be a Christian, for the faith that saves is a faith that obeys. James wrote, "Even so faith, if it have not works is dead in itself" (James 2:17). Can one be saved by a dead faith? Does a dead faith make one a Christian? James also said, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought, with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" (James 2:20-24).

Certainly, we are saved by faith, but not by faith only. The apostle Paul writes of "the obedience of faith" in the first chapter of Romans. He also says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumsion availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6). A saving faith is a working faith. When a faith does not express itself in obedience, it is dead, barren and vain! And can a dead, barren and vain faith make one a Christian?

No, not every believer in Christ is a Christian!

The only person who can rightly wear this glorious name, Christian, is the disciple of Christ, the person who has obeyed the gospel and has become a member of the body or church of Christ. Just before the Lord ascended back to his Father, he gave his disciples the great commission saying "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:15, 16). As a result of that preaching, men were saved, and the disciples were called Christians at Antioch!

It’s as easy as falling off a log. That seems to be the attitude many people take towards salvation. Every Sunday they are in the church singing the songs and listening to the preaching. Then during the week you can hardly get them to discuss Biblical matters. Or you meet someone who lectures you on how they are right with God without getting involved in these modern hypocritical churches. Another is not being interested in reading the scriptures since they aren’t relevant today. I’ve encountered these and others too often to think its some isolated phenomena. Seems many have decided that Jesus had it backwards

Entire congregations fit this description. I'll wager there are many mainstream denominational "churches" where not one person is saved, including the pastor.



In Matthew 7 Jesus states, “Heaven can only be entered through the narrow gate! The highway to hell is broad and its gate is wide enough for all the multitudes who choose its easy way. But the Gateway to Life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it.”….Doesn‘t sound as easy as the proverbial log.

In both Mark chapter 8 and Luke chapter 9 Jesus warns that if we’re ashamed of him before men, he’ll be ashamed of us before His Father and the angels.

You don't see it probably because it isn't the popular image of Jesus that is portrayed. When the gospels, and Jesus, are evaluated in their cultural and historical contexts that is what we see though. Calling a Goy a dog is a good example of this - most people don't know, without being familiar with the culture and history, that it was a racial slur. Reading Jesus say it in English almost sounds cute.

It's like the idea that Jesus fulfilled the 'prophecies of Messiah'...

It's like the idea that Jesus fulfilled the 'prophecies of Messiah'...

Oh, don't get me started. :headbang:

All I can say, Tropical, is :rolleyes.

you cannot from two verses decide what Jesus was or was not. Jesus is the Savior of man as John 3:16 portrays.

In the Book of Romans, chapter 10: it talks about salvation through Jesus Christ. Not for jews but for those who were non-jews.

In Luke Chapter 19, it talks about saving the lost.

We can go on about this all day long. The problem here is that we have many interpretations of the Bible. That's the key word, Interpretations. Everyone interprets the Bible in there own way.

To me, and to most Christians, including the Apostles, Christ came down to save the world from sin. It is a known fact that Paul (who was Saul, the Persecutor of Christians) went to Rome to try and convert Ceaser into a Christian and not a Jew.

All I can say, Tropical, is :rolleyes.

you cannot from two verses decide what Jesus was or was not. Jesus is the Savior of man as John 3:16 portrays.

In the Book of Romans, chapter 10: it talks about salvation through Jesus Christ. Not for jews but for those who were non-jews.

In Luke Chapter 19, it talks about saving the lost.

We can go on about this all day long. The problem here is that we have many interpretations of the Bible. That's the key word, Interpretations. Everyone interprets the Bible in there own way.

To me, and to most Christians, including the Apostles, Christ came down to save the world from sin. It is a known fact that Paul (who was Saul, the Persecutor of Christians) went to Rome to try and convert Ceaser into a Christian and not a Jew.

Just by the way... perhaps this is my heresy for today, but I believe the John 3 verses are incorrectly attributed...

Grab a copy of John, and read it with the emphasis as follows:

John 3:10-2 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?"

These are the words of Jesus... but this is where his reply ends.


The next part, is John's commentary on what Jesus said:

John 3:13-21 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God".

And John 3:22 onwards, continues the narrative....

All I can say, Tropical, is :rolleyes.

you cannot from two verses decide what Jesus was or was not. Jesus is the Savior of man as John 3:16 portrays.

In the Book of Romans, chapter 10: it talks about salvation through Jesus Christ. Not for jews but for those who were non-jews.

In Luke Chapter 19, it talks about saving the lost.

We can go on about this all day long. The problem here is that we have many interpretations of the Bible. That's the key word, Interpretations. Everyone interprets the Bible in there own way.

To me, and to most Christians, including the Apostles, Christ came down to save the world from sin. It is a known fact that Paul (who was Saul, the Persecutor of Christians) went to Rome to try and convert Ceaser into a Christian and not a Jew.

Like I said, Jesus didn't write John 3:16. An anonymous author did. An anonymous author who was probably a Goy wrote it, in Greek. I doubt if he portrayed Jesus' intentions as well as the few sayings of Jesus in the gospels, which are probably the most accurate parts of them.

Jesus didn't write Romans, either. Romans was another book written about Jesus, by a man who never knew Jesus, directed at a Goy audience. Of course it attempted to portray Jesus as the savior of all, this was during the time when the Jesus movement began to roll among the non-Jewish population. The same applies to Luke.

Now, what Paul taught was radically different from what we see Jesus in the gospels teaching. So much so, that early Christians were divided among followers of Paul and those that were not. Pauline Christianity simply won out in the end. It isn't representative of Jesus, however. Why do Christians always confuse Paul with Jesus?

Now, to be fair, I never gave you any interpretations. I told you simply that Jesus never said he came to save Goyim. That much is a fact - nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say he came to save Goyim. Jesus said he came only for Israel. Sure, other parts of the NT talk about salvation for Goyim. Anonymous parts and the parts written by Paul. However, Jesus said no such thing.

How do we know the Bible is valid?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

ancient list of church canons:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Bible according the Council of Trent which set it for the Catholic Church

http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html

Like I said, Jesus didn't write John 3:16. An anonymous author did. An anonymous author who was probably a Goy wrote it, in Greek. I doubt if he portrayed Jesus' intentions as well as the few sayings of Jesus in the gospels, which are probably the most accurate parts of them.

And I never said that Jesus uttered 3:16 now did I?

Jesus didn't write Romans, either. Romans was another book written about Jesus, by a man who never knew Jesus, directed at a Goy audience. Of course it attempted to portray Jesus as the savior of all, this was during the time when the Jesus movement began to roll among the non-Jewish population. The same applies to Luke.

Again, I never said he did now did I?

Now, what Paul taught was radically different from what we see Jesus in the gospels teaching. So much so, that early Christians were divided among followers of Paul and those that were not. Pauline Christianity simply won out in the end. It isn't representative of Jesus, however. Why do Christians always confuse Paul with Jesus?

I don't. I know they are 2 seperate individuals. I do know that Paul persecuted the early Christians. I know that Paul was on his way to Damascus to do the samething. I know that Paul wrote the Acts and Romans.

Now, to be fair, I never gave you any interpretations. I told you simply that Jesus never said he came to save Goyim.

Nor did he say he didn't.

That much is a fact - nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say he came to save Goyim. Jesus said he came only for Israel. Sure, other parts of the NT talk about salvation for Goyim. Anonymous parts and the parts written by Paul. However, Jesus said no such thing.

Nor did he say anything else. Just that through him, you'll be saved. As the Book of James said in Chapter 1 verse 26-27: If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being poluted by the world.

That which is taught by Jesus and his apostles is true? You mean Judaism?

Jesus said he came only for Jews, the lost sheep of Israel, and referred to gentiles as "dogs" - a Semitic racial slur. The only reason Christianity gained any influence among the Goy population was due to Paul. Jesus and his apostles taught a Jew-only extremist version of Judaism.

If you aren't a Jew then you aren't practicing that which was taught by Jesus, you're practicing the later Pauline "man made version" or whatever you would like to call it.

There are lots of things Christians today use that Jesus didn't advocate - like a New Testament.
ya ya but

peter (the guy jesus left in charge) has this to say in acts...


5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."


as i read it, because gentiles received the holy spirit just as jews did, they took it as evidence that god accepted gentiles. it would be strong evidence to me in the same circumstances

i was looking in acts to see when peter moved to rome. i was wondering how a strict jew preaching to his people happened to end up in rome and writing in greek.

i know greek was the language of intellectuals but peter wasnt an intellectual. was latin at that time only used for more mundane writing? if youre in rome shouldnt you write like the romans do?

could someone explain this to me?

How do we know the Bible is valid?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

ancient list of church canons:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Bible according the Council of Trent which set it for the Catholic Church

http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html

The Book of John actually. Chapter 1 verses 1 and 2: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2)He was with God in the beginning.

Nor did he say he didn't.

Jesus said he came only for Israel. That is what is called an exclusive statement. If he came only for Israel, then he didn't come for Israel and the Goyim. So yes, he did say he didn't, implictly.

Jesus said he came only for Israel. That is what is called an exclusive statement. If he came only for Israel, then he didn't come for Israel and the Goyim. So yes, he did say he didn't, implictly.

Show me the passage in the Bible that says that.

Jesus said he came only for Israel. That is what is called an exclusive statement. If he came only for Israel, then he didn't come for Israel and the Goyim. So yes, he did say he didn't, implictly.
ya he did say that but isnt there a story in at least one of the gospels where a samaritan woman come to jesus to be healed and he relents and helps her because her faith moved him?

i know greek was the language of intellectuals but peter wasnt an intellectual. was latin at that time only used for more mundane writing? if youre in rome shouldnt you write like the romans do?

could someone explain this to me?

Greek was actually one of the more commonly spoken languages in that whole area at the time period. This is mostly due to Jewish Hellenization from the time period when Alexander the Great's influence swept through Judea. Because Alexander allowed them to keep their religion, they were pretty friendly toward new Greek influences. I think at one point there was even a decree in the honor of Alexander to name all newborn Jewish males Alexander; and as a result we really do see a huge increase in Jews named Alexander and taking Greek names during the Hasmodean dynasty.

So, long story short, Greek culture (and language) swept through Judea. Rather than just being a language of the intellectuals, it was probably more common than we can imagine by the first century CE.

Show me the passage in the Bible that says that.
He can't cause its not in there.

Greek was actually one of the more commonly spoken languages in that whole area at the time period. This is mostly due to Jewish Hellenization from the time period when Alexander the Great's influence swept through Judea. Because Alexander allowed them to keep their religion, they were pretty friendly toward new Greek influences. I think at one point there was even a decree in the honor of Alexander to name all newborn Jewish males Alexander; and as a result we really do see a huge increase in Jews named Alexander and taking Greek names during the Hasmodean dynasty.

So, long story short, Greek culture (and language) swept through Judea. Rather than just being a language of the intellectuals, it was probably more common than we can imagine by the first century CE.

Actually the greeks were very hostile to the Israelites. Greek was not the common language of the holy land. It was a universal language for the mideast yes. But the dominant language of palestine? Not.

Show me the passage in the Bible that says that.

I posted both that passage and the one where he called a Goy woman a racial slur in the last post. Here, I'll get it again for you.

Matt. 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

ya he did say that but isnt there a story in at least one of the gospels where a samaritan woman come to jesus to be healed and he relents and helps her because her faith moved him?

Yes, thats the same narrative where he calls the woman a racial slur and says he came only for Israel. He does end up healing her in the end anyway, although I think it would be a stretch to assume from this that his message and movement suddenly extends to Goyim as well. He had healed Romans and that sort of thing beforehand too, but even after the fact when he ran into her he still said he came only for Israel.

Greek was actually one of the more commonly spoken languages in that whole area at the time period. This is mostly due to Jewish Hellenization from the time period when Alexander the Great's influence swept through Judea. Because Alexander allowed them to keep their religion, they were pretty friendly toward new Greek influences. I think at one point there was even a decree in the honor of Alexander to name all newborn Jewish males Alexander; and as a result we really do see a huge increase in Jews named Alexander and taking Greek names during the Hasmodean dynasty.

So, long story short, Greek culture (and language) swept through Judea. Rather than just being a language of the intellectuals, it was probably more common than we can imagine by the first century CE.

ya but i thought all those guys spoke aramaic with greek being used by those who got around more. i dont remember what peters job was before he became an apostle but i didnt think that any of them were great travellers or intellects.

was greek commonly used in rome itself? were peter and paul getting by in rome speaking in greek rather than latin?

Yes, thats the same narrative where he calls the woman a racial slur and says he came only for Israel. He does end up healing her in the end anyway, although I think it would be a stretch to assume from this that his message and movement suddenly extends to Goyim as well. He had healed Romans and that sort of thing beforehand too, but even after the fact when he ran into her he still said he came only for Israel.
which makes the willingness of the apostles to accept gentiles all the more interesting.

it seems that they did not take the words of jesus as "gospel" and felt free to make their own judgements of the will of god. so that when gentiles had the same experience with the holy spirit tht the jewish christians had, they took the evidence of their own ministry over the dictates of jesus.

ya but i thought all those guys spoke aramaic with greek being used by those who got around more. i dont remember what peters job was before he became an apostle but i didnt think that any of them were great travellers or intellects.

was greek commonly used in rome itself? were peter and paul getting by in rome speaking in greek rather than latin?
he was a simple illiterate fisherman
The books attributed to him, were not written by his hand but by a scribe taking dictation from him.

Actually the greeks were very hostile to the Israelites. Greek was not the common language of the holy land. It was a universal language for the mideast yes. But the dominant language of palestine? Not.

Any danger of presenting evidence?

he was a simple illiterate fisherman
The books attributed to him, were not written by his hand but by a scribe taking dictation from him.
ya but didnt peter end up in rome? how did he get by if he knew neither greek nor latin?

ya but didnt peter end up in rome? how did he get by if he knew neither greek nor latin?
ah. He did end up in Rome and he was actually crucified there upside down.
Have you heard of the gift of tongues.
As I've stated I have the gift of prophecy there are those today, who just like Peter and the other early followers of Jesus who have the gift of tongues.
The gift of tongues causes you to speak in a foreign language that, just minutes before, you could not speak. The gift of tongues would have enabled him to speak the local language.
A good example is what happened on the day of pentecost when the holy spirit descended on them and they started speaking to people of different nationalities in those people's native languages. Languages that before, they recieved the Holy Ghost, they could neither speak nor understand.

Actually the greeks were very hostile to the Israelites. Greek was not the common language of the holy land. It was a universal language for the mideast yes. But the dominant language of palestine? Not.

For one, Alexander wasn't a Greek, nor was his empire a Greek one. Rather it was Macedonian. He simply brought and spread Greek culture through Judea. Alexander also adhered to his policy whereby he allowed cultures to retain their practices and traditions, so he won a lot of favor amongst Jews. Here, let me show you some examples from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Alexander the Great:

"By introducing Hellenic culture into Syria and Egypt, he had probably more influence on the development of Judaism than any one individual not a Jew by race."

"All the accounts which the Talmud and Midrash give concerning Alexander MuḲdon (the Macedonian) are of a legendary character."

Here is an enteresting excerpt from Josephus on Alexander

Alexander went to Jerusalem after having taken Gaza. Jaddua, the high priest, had a warning from God received in a dream, in which he saw himself vested in a purple robe, with his miter—that had the golden plate on which the name of God was engraved—on his head. Accordingly he went to meet Alexander at Sapha ("View" [of the Temple]). Followed by the priests, all clothed in fine linen, and by a multitude of citizens, Jaddua awaited the coming of the king. When Alexander saw the high priest, he reverenced God (Lev. R. xiii., end), and saluted Jaddua; while the Jews with one voice greeted Alexander. When Parmenio, the general, gave expression to the army's surprise at Alexander's extraordinary act—that one who ought to be adored by all as king should adore the high priest of the Jews—Alexander replied: "I did not adore him, but the God who hath honored him with this high-priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea, promising that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians." Alexander then gave the high priest his right hand, and went into the Temple and "offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest's direction," treating the whole priesthood magnificently. "And when the Book of Daniel was shown him [see Dan. vii. 6, viii. 5-8, 20-22, xi. 3-4], wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks [] should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that he was the person intended, and rejoiced thereat. The following day Alexander asked the people what favors he should grant them; and, at the high priest's request, he accorded them the right to livein full enjoyment of the laws of their forefathers. He, furthermore, exempted them from the payment of tribute in the seventh year of release. To the Jews of Babylonia and Media also he granted like privileges; and to the Jews who were willing to enlist in his army he promised the right to live in accordance with their ancestral laws. Afterward the Samaritans, having learned of the favors granted the Jews by Alexander, asked for similar privileges; but Alexander declined to accede to their request.

This is from the Talmud, Yoma 96a

"When the Samaritans had obtained permission from Alexander to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, the high priest Simon the Just, arrayed in his pontifical garments and followed by a number of distinguished Jews, went out to meet the conqueror, and joined him at Antipatris, on the northern frontier. At sight of Simon, Alexander fell prostrate at his feet, and explained to his astonished companions that the image of the Jewish high priest was always with him in battle, fighting for him and leading him to victory. Simon took the opportunity to justify the attitude of his countrymen, declaring that, far from being rebels, they offered prayers in the Temple for the welfare of the king and his dominions. So impressed was Alexander that he delivered up all the Samaritans in his train into the hands of the Jews, who tied them to the tails of horses and dragged them to the mountain of Gerizim; then the Jews plowed the mountain [demolished the Samaritan temple]."

Now, here is what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about Hellenization (the assimiliation of Greek culture into Jewish culture):

"Except in Egypt, Hellenic influence was nowhere stronger than on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Greek cities arose there in continuation, or in place, of the older Semitic foundations, and gradually changed the aspect of the country. Such cities were Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Jabneh, Jaffa, Cæsarea, Dor, and Ptolemais. It was especially in eastern Palestine that Hellenism took a firm hold, and the cities of the Decapolis (which seems also to have included Damascus) were the centers of Greek influence. This influence extended in later times over the whole of the district east of the Jordan and of the Sea of Gennesaret, especially inTrachonitis, Batanæa, and Auranitis. The cities in western Palestine were not excepted. Samaria and Panias were at an early time settled by Macedonian colonists. The names of places were Hellenized: "Rabbath-Ammon" to "Philadelphia"; "Armoab" to "Ariopolis"; "Akko" to "Ptolemais." The same occurred with personal names: "Ḥoni" became "Menelaus"; "Joshua" became "Jason" or "Jesus." The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people."

"A glance at the classes of Greek words which found their way into the Hebrew and the Jewish-Aramaic of the period, as compiled by I. Löw (in S. Krauss, "Lehnwörter," pp. 623 et seq.), shows this with great clearness"

"The Hellenists were not confined to the aristocratic class, but were found in all strata of Jewish society."

It seems that you may be mistaken on your analysis of Hellenism in Judea and the widespread influence it had, in addition to the positive interaction of Alexander's empire with the Jews.

For one, Alexander wasn't a Greek, nor was his empire a Greek one. Rather it was Macedonian. He simply brought and spread Greek culture through Judea. Alexander also adhered to his policy whereby he allowed cultures to retain their practices and traditions, so he won a lot of favor amongst Jews. Here, let me show you some examples from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Alexander the Great:

"By introducing Hellenic culture into Syria and Egypt, he had probably more influence on the development of Judaism than any one individual not a Jew by race."

"All the accounts which the Talmud and Midrash give concerning Alexander MuḲdon (the Macedonian) are of a legendary character."

Here is an enteresting excerpt from Josephus on Alexander



This is from the Talmud, Yoma 96a



Now, here is what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about Hellenization (the assimiliation of Greek culture into Jewish culture):

"Except in Egypt, Hellenic influence was nowhere stronger than on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Greek cities arose there in continuation, or in place, of the older Semitic foundations, and gradually changed the aspect of the country. Such cities were Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Jabneh, Jaffa, Cæsarea, Dor, and Ptolemais. It was especially in eastern Palestine that Hellenism took a firm hold, and the cities of the Decapolis (which seems also to have included Damascus) were the centers of Greek influence. This influence extended in later times over the whole of the district east of the Jordan and of the Sea of Gennesaret, especially inTrachonitis, Batanæa, and Auranitis. The cities in western Palestine were not excepted. Samaria and Panias were at an early time settled by Macedonian colonists. The names of places were Hellenized: "Rabbath-Ammon" to "Philadelphia"; "Armoab" to "Ariopolis"; "Akko" to "Ptolemais." The same occurred with personal names: "Ḥoni" became "Menelaus"; "Joshua" became "Jason" or "Jesus." The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people."

"A glance at the classes of Greek words which found their way into the Hebrew and the Jewish-Aramaic of the period, as compiled by I. Löw (in S. Krauss, "Lehnwörter," pp. 623 et seq.), shows this with great clearness"

"The Hellenists were not confined to the aristocratic class, but were found in all strata of Jewish society."

It seems that you may be mistaken on your analysis of Hellenism in Judea and the widespread influence it had, in addition to the positive interaction of Alexander's empire with the Jews.

excuse me but
I believe that was Alexander's policy but Alexander died in iraq at the age of 30. He didn't get to rule for very long. He was succeeded by 4 generals one of whome took palestine.
Also there were several jewish revolts against the greek rulers just as there was against the romans later.

ah. He did end up in Rome and he was actually crucified there upside down.
Have you heard of the gift of tongues.
As I've stated I have the gift of prophecy there are those today, who just like Peter and the other early followers of Jesus who have the gift of tongues.
The gift of tongues causes you to speak in a foreign language that, just minutes before, you could not speak. The gift of tongues would have enabled him to speak the local language.
A good example is what happened on the day of pentecost when the holy spirit descended on them and they started speaking to people of different nationalities in those people's native languages. Languages that before, they recieved the Holy Ghost, they could neither speak nor understand.

Didn't I read in the scripture somewhere, that each believer may receive one of the gifts of the holy spirit? Was Peter's gift, the gift of speaking in tongues?

(By the way, speaking in tongues doesn't automatically carry any ability to UNDERSTAND those tongues... that's a different gift, I believe).

Didn't I read in the scripture somewhere, that each believer may receive one of the gifts of the holy spirit? Was Peter's gift, the gift of speaking in tongues?

(By the way, speaking in tongues doesn't automatically carry any ability to UNDERSTAND those tongues... that's a different gift, I believe).
It depends. The disciples had more than one gift: tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.
Yes the gift of tongues only allows to speak in that language it does not enable you to understand it. For that, you need someone with the gift of interpretation (or you can take the easy out and just get a trained interpreter if you know what language is being spoken).

Didn't I read in the scripture somewhere, that each believer may receive one of the gifts of the holy spirit? Was Peter's gift, the gift of speaking in tongues?

(By the way, speaking in tongues doesn't automatically carry any ability to UNDERSTAND those tongues... that's a different gift, I believe).
i thought that one only spoke in tongues when the holy spirit was upon them not that it was a permanent gift.

wasnt the true gift that the holy spirit gave to the apostles one of courage? that they would no longer be the stupid weasly cowards they were when they were following jesus like dogs (no racial slur intended). after the pentacost they became bold courageous men who could go out into the world and preach the gospel to the masses.

ah. He did end up in Rome and he was actually crucified there upside down.
Have you heard of the gift of tongues.

I guess you can either believe that Peter was heavily influenced by around five centuries of Hellenism that pervaded Jewish society, thus rendering him able to speak and/or be familiar with the Greek language...

Or you can believe that the magical gift of tongues gave him the ability.

If it was not intended for persons to enjoy themselves the we would not have the over population that we have today--the problem is control--
enjoy it, that is what it's there for
realize when the right time is for breeding, i.e. When you can financially and mentally afford it. In the meantime enjoy other other things.
and realize that the bibleand other such books is actually have been added onto and taken away from so many times that you are never reading the truth.
The only reason that people should wear clothes is because of health reasons
but people couldn't understand that many years ago

I guess you can either believe that Peter was heavily influenced by around five centuries of Hellenism that pervaded Jewish society, thus rendering him able to speak and/or be familiar with the Greek language...

Or you can believe that the magical gift of tongues gave him the ability.
so you are suggesting that pretty much everyone in israel spoke greek as well as aramaic?

and did everyone in rome speak greek too?

so you are suggesting that pretty much everyone in israel spoke greek as well as aramaic?

and did everyone in rome speak greek too?

I don't know if I would say pretty much everyone. I can't really make a statement as to how many people, I don't think it can be known, but I would say it was pretty heavy and significant. Aramaic was the dominant language still, although Greek may not have been too far behind.

I imagine there are some European or African countries I could make a good analogy with, where multiple languages are quite commonly spoken even if one is spoken less than the other. Nothing comes to mind right offhand, but use your imagination I suppose.

I really couldn't say if everyone in Rome spoke Greek or not either, I couldn't give any estimates with as much certainty as I could about Judea.

Dempublicents1 (where’d you get that name?) wrote in post 374:

I hate the idea of partisan politics. I basically took "Democrat", "Republican", and "Independent" and mixed them together. Kind of a "why can't we all get along?" type of thing.

1. It depends on what you consider religion. To me, true Christianity is more a faith than a religion. It’s supposed to be more of a way of life.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, I would argue that a religion has to be a way of life and a faith.

2. You cannot ignore Jocabia’s arrogance in this respect. I admitted to being wrong. He continued to engage in personal attacks.

You basically said, over and over and over again, "I'm wrong, except that I'm totally and completely right." That is hardly a serious admission of being wrong.

When I say something is against scripture, it is not based on my interpretation. For it is written that scripture is not open to individual interpretation.

Any time you read anything, you are interpreting it. Either that, or you are going by someone else's interpretation. There is no way to get around it. Thus, yes, every single time you try and use scripture, you are using your personal interpretation of whatever translation of scripture you are using. You cannot know the minds of those who wrote it.

What you *can* do, and I hope that you actually do, is ask God for guidance in reading the scripture, so that you will come to the right interpretation.

For example he quotes Matthew, he claimed the section was about pride. I didn’t get to post it yet, but if you look at all the commentaries, and concordances (a couple of which I will post after this), they support my position that Jesus chief bone with the Pharisees in that chapter was their hypocrisy.

Once again, these faults are not mutually exlcusive. In fact, they often go hand in hand.

Meanwhile, why do you rely so much on the religion of others to determine your beliefs? Do you have so much faith in human beings that it overshadows your faith in God?

They claimed publicly to be doing things, when in reality they weren’t. They prayed in public, yet they weren’t really praying. They were just blabbing to make people think they were greater than they actually were.

Sounds like pride to me.

When you see a person praying in a public place, the issue is not where he is praying, but rather his sincerity. His intentions.

And if he is making a public spectacle of his prayers, it is fairly obvious that his intentions are for other human beings to notice.

3. Saying, “he lacks understanding of the scriptures” is not equal to saying “I’m totally right and he is totally wrong”.

No, but it equivalent to saying, "I'm right and he's wrong."

I just have a better grasp of scriptures’ meanings because I’ve been in the faith longer and have had more time to mature.

Why does "being in the faith longer" have anything to do with it? I know people who have "been in the faith longer" and don't seem to have much of an understanding of it at all - who ask me questions about what things mean.

How do you know how long Jocabia has been a Christian vs. you?

And how on Earth do you claim to have a better grasp of scripture than him without declaring yourself the arbiter of all that is right?

Jocabia’s authority on the Bible is not equal that of a priest, evangelist or missionary.

Now that would depend on the priest, evangelist, or missionary, now wouldn't it? I have met many an evangelist who hasn't even bothered to read the entire Bible, much less study it. There are members of all three groups who abuse their position of authority to molest children.

It is one thing to have a tendency to defer to someone who is more studied than you, but a personal relationship with God is just that - personal. Thus, *any* teaching you receive from *any* other human being must be filtered through that relationship.

I denounce religion, but I still accept people in those denominations are authorities on scripture who know more than I. That is why I refer you to them.
There is no contradiction in my words, except to the blind who seek to lead the blind.

So they are absolutely wrong, by virtue of following a religion, but still an authority on scripture? I don't know about you, but I'm confused.

Meanwhile, we are all the blind seeking to lead the blind, and to be led by the one who does see.

We are not all authorities.

You do not believe in a personal relationship with God then? You do not believe that we can all seek guidance from God and receive it?

God has sent us pastors, missionaries, evangelists, prophets, and witnesses to tell us about him and his word. Yet you have consistently said throughout this thread, "If you are human, then I don't accept anything you say as coming from God". You even reject the apostles.

God has also made us missionaries and witnesses in our own right.

Jocabia never said that he would not accept anything a human says as coming from God. He has said, as I would, that one must not take anything a human being says on faith, because that human being may be lying. One can listen to what a human being says, but then must ask God for guidance as to its truthfulness.

You are right when you say I have no right, on my own, to say who is and who is not a true christian.

Then stop saying it.

However, it is also incorrect to claim that anyone who says they believe in Jesus is automatically a christian.

So you have no right to say who is and is not a true Christian, but you do have the right to define what a Christian is and is not?

It was he gave me my mission in life and it is to him alone that I am accountable to.

And yet you assume that God has not given us all guidance. Do you really think you are so very special in this respect?

He can't cause its not in there.

Thank You! I already knew that hence why I asked him to prove it to me

I posted both that passage and the one where he called a Goy woman a racial slur in the last post. Here, I'll get it again for you.

Matt. 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

So tell me! Does that mean that there weren't gentiles in Israel?

So tell me! Does that mean that there weren't gentiles in Israel?

Actually a place called Israel didn't exist in the first century. There was no Israel for gentiles to be in.

When we have references to Israel like this, particularly post-kingdom references, it refers to the collective Jewish people. The term "Jew" was just beginning to become more popular. For example, today you rarely hear Jews call each other Israelites or Israel, but this usage was much more common then.

In essence, saying "I was sent only for Israel" is the same as saying "I was sent only for Jews."

Actually a place called Israel didn't exist in the first century. There was no Israel for gentiles to be in.

HA! CONTRADICTION! Israel actually did exist however it was part of the Roman Empire.

When we have references to Israel like this, particularly post-kingdom references, it refers to the collective Jewish people. The term "Jew" was just beginning to become more popular. For example, today you rarely hear Jews call each other Israelites or Israel, but this usage was much more common then.

And this interpretation comes from.....

In essence, saying "I was sent only for Israel" is the same as saying "I was sent only for Jews."

And this interpretation comes from......

So tell me! Does that mean that there weren't gentiles in Israel?

The funny thing is that, like many, TS is assuming that a passage can only be seen in one light. I have always read that passage as Christ's way of teaching a lesson to his disciples. The minute this gentile woman dares to speak to Christ, they cry out that she is bothering him - and bothering them. So Christ uses their viewpoint. The woman shows that she has great faith, greater perhaps than the Jews around her. In this, she serves as a lesson that one cannot suggest that only members of a certain ethnic group can have faith. To do so is the height of pride.

HA! CONTRADICTION! Israel actually did exist however it was part of the Roman Empire.

Wow, you got awfully excited there. Allow me to correct you. Centuries before, Israel was a united kingdom. Then it split into two kingdoms - The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE when the Assyrians took it. Only Judah survived to become a part of the Roman Empire. The inhabitants of Israel were assimiliated and the land was carved up. Thus we get the "lost tribes of Israel." See the entry for the Kingdom of Israel in the Jewish Encyclopedia if you'd like to check for yourself:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=294&letter=I&search=israel#833

And this interpretation comes from.....

The interpretation that Israel doesn't refer to a non-existant place? It seems like a solid enough principle of exegesis to me. I guess if you don't want to sit back and listen to a Jew tell you about Jews, I can dig it up someplace to "prove" it to you. I'll use the Jewish Encyclopedia again:

"In the Bible "Israel" is the national name of the people who are known racially as "Hebrews."

"Whether regarded politically or ethnologically, Israel must be considered a composite people."

"The expression "Hebrews" is used as a name for Israelites in contrast with Egyptians, or by Egyptians for Israelites, in both the early narratives of the Pentateuch (J and E), but only in the story of Joseph and in that of Moses (Gen. xxxix.-xliii.; Ex. iii,-x.)."

(On the word Jew) "a gentilic adjective from the proper name "Judah," seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9)."

"It [the word Jew] appears to have been afterward extended to apply to Israelites (II Kings xvi. 3) in the north."

"In more modern usage the word [Jew] is often applied to any person of the Hebrew race, apart from his religious creed."

So, Israel:Hebrew:Jew

The funny thing is that, like many, TS is assuming that a passage can only be seen in one light. I have always read that passage as Christ's way of teaching a lesson to his disciples. The minute this gentile woman dares to speak to Christ, they cry out that she is bothering him - and bothering them. So Christ uses their viewpoint. The woman shows that she has great faith, greater perhaps than the Jews around her. In this, she serves as a lesson that one cannot suggest that only members of a certain ethnic group can have faith. To do so is the height of pride.

I agree.

*nods head solemnly*

*snip*

Again, it is only your interpretation.

i guess if it makes y'all feel better you can ignore what is plainly written in the bible.

if jesus SAYS he is only there to save the jews, i dont see why we should reinterpret it to make it more palatable to us.

its not like its a parable where he is talking in allegory and his ideas MUST be interpreted. this was him talking about his ministry.

if you look at that passage i quoted from ACTS youll see that it was debated by the apostles themselves. they had presumably heard jesus say it, they certainly seemed to believe it themselves at least enough to take the question very seriously. and it seems that it was decided by peter only on evidence that gentiles could receive the holy spirit.

i guess if it makes y'all feel better you can ignore what is plainly written in the bible.

if jesus SAYS he is only there to save the jews, i dont see why we should reinterpret it to make it more palatable to us.

He didn't say he was there to save the jews. Nowhere did he ever say that.

if you look at that passage i quoted from ACTS youll see that it was debated by the apostles themselves. they had presumably heard jesus say it, they certainly seemed to believe it themselves at least enough to take the question very seriously. and it seems that it was decided by peter only on evidence that gentiles could receive the holy spirit.

Bingo.

No. I'm just saying he should go back and research what his denomination believes. How can that be based on PRIDE on my part?
Let's see:

1. You don't know what his denomination is.

2. You don't belong to his denomination, so you don't live by its tenets.

3. You are not him, so you cannot know what he knows about his religion.

4. Because of 1, 2, and 3, you are not in a position to say whether he's correct about his denomination's teachings or not.

5. But you nevertheless presume to tell him that he needs to research the beliefs of his denomination, even though you don't know what it is.

So sure you know things you cannot possibly know. That's a hell of a lot of self-confidence you got there, SW. I'd say it reaches all the way up to PRIDE.

Let's see:

1. You don't know what his denomination is.

2. You don't belong to his denomination, so you don't live by its tenets.

3. You are not him, so you cannot know what he knows about his religion.

4. Because of 1, 2, and 3, you are not in a position to say whether he's correct about his denomination's teachings or not.

5. But you nevertheless presume to tell him that he needs to research the beliefs of his denomination, even though you don't know what it is.

So sure you know things you cannot possibly know. That's a hell of a lot of self-confidence you got there, SW. I'd say it reaches all the way up to PRIDE.

*applauds*

How do we know the Bible is valid?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

ancient list of church canons:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

Bible according the Council of Trent which set it for the Catholic Church

http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
Apparently, we know the Bible is valid because the editor of bible-researcher.com, Michael Marlowe, says so.

In the "about this site and its editor" page, Mr. Marlowe describes himself as a conservative Baptist (I guess he disagrees with SW's view that all religious denominations are false) and says: "Concerning the Bible, I believe that it is the inerrant, living and powerful word of God."

No doubt bible-researcher.com is a good source for Bible history data -- Mr. Marlowe includes a lot of factual information, source names and dates. But his belief concerning the Bible is an extremist minority view. While this source may be informative, I cannot consider it either authoritative or objective. For instance, as just one example, in his Introduction to the Canon, he writes:

"Universal agreement in modern times. Today we have no good reason for doubting the canon of the New Testament. It would be wrong for me to suggest that everyone needs to investigate these matters and decide for himself which books he will receive as Scripture, without any respect for the decisions of the early churches. We are not in such a position to judge as the early church was, and we are bound to respect the well-nigh unanimous opinion of so many Christians of the past. As Paul says to the Corinthian innovators, "What! Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone?" Against such presumption he recommends that which is done "in all the churches of the saints." (14:33b-36). Recently some scholars have tried to promote strange doctrines by suggesting that some of our canonical writings are not genuine, and that other writings such as the Gospel of Thomas are equally valid "interpretations" of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I have studied their arguments, and I can assure you that they are not worth listening to." (emphasis added.)

This looks to me like a biased author at work. He acknowledges the existence of differing views but, rather than even direct us to them in a footnote so we can judge for ourselves if we like, he simply assures us we needn't bother ourselves about them because he's already done the thinking for us. Sorry, SW, not good enough.

He didn't say he was there to save the jews. Nowhere did he ever say that.

does matthew 15 not exist in your bible?

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.



you are free to explain it away but i dont see how you can claim he never said it.

does matthew 15 not exist in your bible?


you are free to explain it away but i dont see how you can claim he never said it.

You quoted the last part of Matthew 15. He never said anything about being their for the Jews. He said Israel which also contained non-jews.

You quoted the last part of Matthew 15. He never said anything about being their for the Jews. He said Israel which also contained non-jews.
as i said, you are free to explain it away.

your interpretation makes no sense in the context of the quote i provided.

as i said, you are free to explain it away.

your interpretation makes no sense in the context of the quote i provided.

In those versus you quoted proves, to me at least, that he took pity on everyone. Even those who were not Jews. The CANAANITE WOMAN showed Him that she had faith in HIM and he said "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour."

This woman's daughter, to my knowledge, was not a jew and neither was the woman herself. If he came only for the Jews and was a racist as TS on here tried to make him out to be, then why did he heal this non-jew's daughter?

i thought that one only spoke in tongues when the holy spirit was upon them not that it was a permanent gift.

wasnt the true gift that the holy spirit gave to the apostles one of courage? that they would no longer be the stupid weasly cowards they were when they were following jesus like dogs (no racial slur intended). after the pentacost they became bold courageous men who could go out into the world and preach the gospel to the masses.
the holy spirit, once you have it, stays with you. It does not depart unless you deliberately choose to backslide

I don't know if I would say pretty much everyone. I can't really make a statement as to how many people, I don't think it can be known, but I would say it was pretty heavy and significant. Aramaic was the dominant language still, although Greek may not have been too far behind.

I imagine there are some European or African countries I could make a good analogy with, where multiple languages are quite commonly spoken even if one is spoken less than the other. Nothing comes to mind right offhand, but use your imagination I suppose.

I really couldn't say if everyone in Rome spoke Greek or not either, I couldn't give any estimates with as much certainty as I could about Judea.
Jesus and his disciples spoke aramaic.

Wow, you got awfully excited there. Allow me to correct you. Centuries before, Israel was a united kingdom. Then it split into two kingdoms - The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE when the Assyrians took it. Only Judah survived to become a part of the Roman Empire. The inhabitants of Israel were assimiliated and the land was carved up. Thus we get the "lost tribes of Israel." See the entry for the Kingdom of Israel in the Jewish Encyclopedia if you'd like to check for yourself:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=294&letter=I&search=israel#833



The interpretation that Israel doesn't refer to a non-existant place? It seems like a solid enough principle of exegesis to me. I guess if you don't want to sit back and listen to a Jew tell you about Jews, I can dig it up someplace to "prove" it to you. I'll use the Jewish Encyclopedia again:

"In the Bible "Israel" is the national name of the people who are known racially as "Hebrews."

"Whether regarded politically or ethnologically, Israel must be considered a composite people."

"The expression "Hebrews" is used as a name for Israelites in contrast with Egyptians, or by Egyptians for Israelites, in both the early narratives of the Pentateuch (J and E), but only in the story of Joseph and in that of Moses (Gen. xxxix.-xliii.; Ex. iii,-x.)."

(On the word Jew) "a gentilic adjective from the proper name "Judah," seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9)."

"It [the word Jew] appears to have been afterward extended to apply to Israelites (II Kings xvi. 3) in the north."

"In more modern usage the word [Jew] is often applied to any person of the Hebrew race, apart from his religious creed."

So, Israel:Hebrew:Jew

Emm. Look at the historical falsehoods here. Did you take revisionist history or something?

First off, as noted in posts before:
1. Alexander never got to rule Israel. He died too young. It was his general and his general's descendants who ruled Israel, they did it with an iron fist. Hence the reason for all the rebellions by the Isrealites against the Greek government in Syria.
2. Jesus and Peter and the other disciples spoke Aramaic, not greek. Greek was the language of the very rich. Not the language of the common people. Of the Apostles, only Paul spoke Greek.

Now then:
Judea was also taken over by Babylon. It did not, I repeat did not survive to be taken over by Rome. It was taken first by Babylon, the Persia, the Greece who passed it to the Seleucids who got taken over by Rome.
In the time of Rome, the land of Israel was collectively called Judea. Though there was a small section called Samaria where the samaritans lived.