NationStates Jolt Archive

Just because sin results in death does not necessarily mean that death is the direct result of sin in one's lifetime. Jesus committed no sin until he accepted the sin on the cross--at which point God could no longer look upon him as His perfect son (ref "eli eli lama sabachthani"--"father, father, why have you forsaken me"). Jesus sinned only upon the cross so that he could descend into Hell and thus conquer Death, thereby providing the pathway to reuniting us natural sinners with the kingdom of Heaven.

Then he died a sinner?

Just reading is pointless if you don't understand... This is a Jewish site - ie rejects Jesus as the messiah, but read what it says....

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

A PATHETIC attempt, my friend.

If you are going to cite a source, let me recommend one that doesn't have a huge orange banner reading "Jews for Jesus".

As someone from a Jewish family, I know that a Jew cannot accept Jesus as Messiah, and yet the site you post clearly says:

"Our Mission

We exist to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide.

Perhaps you don't know what 'Jews for Jesus' is - it is a Christian organisation dedicated to 'conversion' of Jews TO Christianity. They may still be 'ethnic' Jews, but their religion is NOT Judaism

You deliberately (or accidentally? Could it be you don't KNOW?) misrepresent your source to make it an 'authority'.

Isn't that the beauty of it, though? God comes to each us in our own way, and the Bible, being the Word of God, and the ultimate truth, is truth to each individual person because of how they write it in their head.

So, the Bible is just a 'tool', and has no value as an objective text?

Ok fine. Didn't know that. Unlikely to be fundamentalist Christians... But regardless of who wrote it, the points in there explain the Curse of Jeconiah, which was all i really wanted Grave_n_Idle to read it for...

The problem, my friend - is that you are claiming Judaism as evidence.

Is Judaism the true religion?

Are the Jews right? Is Jesus NOT the Messiah?

If you accept they ARE right - then you can use their scripture to support your own.


On the other hand - you don't get to pick and choose. If you argue that the Jews are misinformed - since they claim Jesus is NOT messiah - then you cannot admit 'their' evidence.

Either their holy writings are true, or false.... which is it?

Isn't that the beauty of it, though? God comes to each us in our own way, and the Bible, being the Word of God, and the ultimate truth, is truth to each individual person because of how they write it in their head.
Which god?

(You apparently missed some of the earlier posts in which we established that I'm not a Christian.)

which is why catholics believe in infant baptism and why a good catholic nurse will sometimes surreptitiously baptise a newborn that isnt going to survive the night (and sometimes a newborn who didnt survive the birth "just in case")
Exactly. I think a lot of Protestants (in the US at least; I don't know about other countries) abandoned original sin in favor of the born-again concept -- if you get cleansed of sin, then original sin doesn't have much importance, does it? But by my experience it is a common belief among conservative Catholics who think all humans are born in sin because original sin is a stain on all human souls and that we have to seek god's grace to get cleansed.

You dropped the point there. THe Canaanite woman was turned away initially. She was turned away because He was not there for her. You assume that Jesus was simply gearing up to help other than the lost sheep, but if that were so, why turn the woman away? Obviously, he turned her away because it wasn't about his disciples being ready. It was about the FACT that he said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep. Adding context he never said or even really indicated to make it mean something else requires more evidence than you've shown. I am not willing to read things into Jesus' statements that are not there, and I certainly won't do so based on speculation that is unsupported by the teachings.actually, the Canaaite woman was not turned away. It was never said in the account of mathew that Jesus turned the woman away. In Mark 7:24-30, they were in a Home and she was outside calling in. Jesus did not reply. when the disciples told Jesus to send her way, Jesus told them that he was here for the lost sheep of Isreal. (Mat 15:23-24)
Now this is the important part. Mathew 15:25
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.why would she then "Come" if she was already there? unless she was outside the home that Jesus and the Disciples were resting in. and she wouldn't be able to come in unless the door was opened... by someone INSIDE. thus the woman was not turned away but was let in.

as for speculation. can you show where Jesus turned the woman away?



Yes, it says to spread the word to all nations. It doesn't say that it doesn't mean that it was only to spread the word the lost sheep that reside in each of those places, the descendents of Jews, the chosen people. That's the point. The people who were debating whether it was ethnic boundaries were doing so because not all people agree that all nations = all peoples. That's the point. Ask GnI why he was arguing it. He'll tell you. Or go back and read it. Most clearly stated that all NATIONS =/= all PEOPLE.but neither does it state to speak to the sons of Isreal, nor does it state anywhere that the gosple is limited to anyone. ALL NATIONS can mean everyone reguardless of Ethnic/cultural background. please show proof that Jesus meant this when he gave the Great Commission.

also as for avoiding the Lands of the Gentiles as well as the Samaritans, it's funny that only Mathew mentions this.
Mark 6 holds no such instructions
Luke 9 holds no such instructions
only Mathew. funny isn't it.

You aren't talking about his actions. You are talking about what YOU draw from his actions. There is nothing about his actions or his words that indicate he intended to come to help more than the Jews. Yes, he helped people who had enough faith, but he always explained why he did so and made it clear, very clear who he was there for. There is no question. I will not amend the words of Jesus. and you take the works of one book to be the end all be all of Jesus's works and testimony?


No, I didn't. It wasn't racist. It was an ethnic term and the word puppy and dog were in common usage. It refered to all people who were not Jewish. It's not so much that he was 'racist', it was that he didn't try to change such attitudes. That suggests that he wasn't trying to alter their view of the Gentiles as you've suggested several times.actually, it does change the entire context of what he said. I suggest you read that from another viewpoint. mark 7:24-30 the same story but strangly, a whole different tone.

also THIS (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html) explains the difference between "Puppy" and "Dog" as well as the meaning behind why Jesus said what he said.

Where is your evidence that he was trying to change those things. There is no indication that he intended to change the attitude toward Gentiles. It's just something you've inserted into his actions.is attitude is how he treats the Gentiles he meets along his journey. He's conversed with people that shocked not only the spritual leaders but his disciples as well.


As she said, even the puppies get the crumbs. She was asking for crumbs. He gave them to her. Again, why so anxious to amend the expressed words of Jesus with things you've decided MUST be true?no, the woman was saying that even a puppy will be fed while feeding the children. in other words, like the Centurion, she was saying "you don't need to break your rest, but just say the word and I know it will be done." thus the puppy gets fed, while Jesus still attends the needs to his disciples.

I am open-minded. I am NOT taking assumptions and laying them over his words, however. He teaches. He clearly teaches. Why would one argue he was such a poor teacher that his words would contradict what he intended to teach?right... ok then. the Samaritan woman he talks to when he wanted water from her well. John 4

and you have to admit, while no specific Non Jew was mentioned at any of his sermons, there was no indication that anyone was turned away.

Conjecture.

Based on the way he describes the Gentile, it would be entirely fitting to assume that the Gentiles ARE not worthy.and how does he discribe the Gentiles?

also why is Mathew the only one to have this restriction on where to go? other books of the Bible that mention his sending out the disciples don't mention this restriction?

The problem being that the 'spiritual' part is often not included in oldest and best scripture... everything in Mark from the end of 16:8 onwards, for example.true, but as I said, I am still researching that.

There is no reason to suspect 'the multitude' heard a word of the Sermon on the Mount. The disciples may have spread the word, and others may have spread it from those who heard disciples... but Jesus preached TO his followers.and I don't deny that. after all, He had to tend his Disciples first, however, there is nothing to inidicate that none of the "Multitude" heard his teachings also.

Misunderstanding... the suggestion was that ALL nations means all nations... but that it would only be the JEWS in all nations, that would be ministered to.and this is also speculation on your part.

Jesus did say he was sent only for the Lost Sheep of Isreal, so why change that to All Nations when he could've just as easily said to the Jews or To the Children of Isreal or to the decendants of Abraham or anything but All nations. then it would be clear that his teachings were meant for Jewish ears only.

Wait wait wait. So if Jesus took all of the sin of mankind away, doesn't that mean we don't have to die anymore? I'm immortal?????!!!!! :eek:
alas, while the thought of spending all of eternaty reading your marvlous posts is indeed a pleasing thought... it was said that the Wages of Sin is Death. not Death is because of Sin.

But didn't Jesus die to erase this original sin, or am I just misunderstanding everything?
As I understand it, the blood of Jesus washes all sins away, however, this annointing is only recieved by those wanting to accept it. now for those who were saved, but then lost the Faith, I don't know if the annointing still holds (I don't think so,) but that is ultimatly, between them and God.

Then he died a sinner?

Yes, he did die a sinner. Did he sin except on the cross, no.

Which god?

(You apparently missed some of the earlier posts in which we established that I'm not a Christian.)

Haha, I suppose I did. That would be the God of the Christian Bible. (Just out of curiosity though...when God is capitalized doesn't it refer to the Christian one? It may also refer to Allah...seriously, I'm not trying to sound snooty--just curious)

So, the Bible is just a 'tool', and has no value as an objective text?

Okay, look at it this way. The Bible was written some hundreds of years ago (and translated/revised numerous times), but the general message still holds true. When two different people read the same Bible, each of them gains from their reading an idea of the entire truth, based on their own activities and life experiences. This is unavoidable; everyone interprets everything differently, as you mentioned before. Now they have in their mind an idea of the absolute truth that is unique unto themselves, and then through a continued life experience based on this knowledge, and through interactions with other people (both Christians and non-Christians), they gain an even greater idea of the absolute truth. This is where, for many, the institutionalized church steps in--it provides a medium through which people can relate their own truth with those of others who share the same faith in order to build and strive to get closer to the absolute truth of the Bible. So yes, the Bible is indeed a 'tool', one that serves to bring each person to God in his or her own way as I described above. As an objective text, it should not be discounted for the truth which it holds, but it must also be remembered that no one living can truly know that absolute truth of the Bible, as human nature allows us only our own interpretation.

yes

i aplogise for this but after reading much of this thread it has to be said

arguing about religion is like arguing about who's imaginary friend is more real

no evidence, no objective proof. God, or god's in a polytheistic sense may well be real, but it is useless to use any form of document written by man to prove it one way or the other. the bible, and most likely the Koran, and the holy books of mormon, and whatever else, is subject to mankinds inherent socio-political drive for control. however, im not against them, the bible is fantastic inspiration for me, but not in a religious sense. it should never be viewed as the literal word of any "GOD", and thankfully this thread has approached it in a rational manner, accepting its inherent problems and trying to work round them *claps*

darkside

The problem isn't about worship. That's just it. You aren't reacting to what I'm saying. You're not even talking to me. What matters to you is what Christianity MUST be in your eyes. Until you're willing to talk about what I believe instead of what you want to argue against, we're not going to get anywhere. When an Atheist tells me what I MUST believe as a Christian, well, let's just say it's not very productive.

Perhaps I simply dont understand what it is your trying to say.
If so, then the fault isnt entirely mine.

You were insisting that I look deeply within myself, and seek some kind of peace of mind, wich will inevitably lead me to God, or at least, you mention this many times throughout our conversation.

My sole contention, is that this process has been done many, many, times.
While peace of mind can/has been attained, God never has.
There isnt some small part of me that knows God exist, that I can draw from.
It simply isnt there.

I cant force myself to believe, Ive tried that too.

Now, if you would, please re-iterate your point of view, and tell me where it is your coming from.
Lets talk about what you believe.

Yes, he did die a sinner. Did he sin except on the cross, no.

The differance is that it was our sins ... not his.

A PATHETIC attempt, my friend.

If you are going to cite a source, let me recommend one that doesn't have a huge orange banner reading "Jews for Jesus".

As someone from a Jewish family, I know that a Jew cannot accept Jesus as Messiah, and yet the site you post clearly says:



Perhaps you don't know what 'Jews for Jesus' is - it is a Christian organisation dedicated to 'conversion' of Jews TO Christianity. They may still be 'ethnic' Jews, but their religion is NOT Judaism

You deliberately (or accidentally? Could it be you don't KNOW?) misrepresent your source to make it an 'authority'.

That point's already been made. But yeah, my bad. The thing is, just cos it wasn't written by a Jew, does that make it wrong? The point i made about it being a Jewish author wasn't even the point of me posting the link... It simply answers your suggestions about the Curse of Jeconiah...

Nobody can truthfully claim to "KNOW" anything... All our science could in fact be one big illusion created to help explain what humans want... So erm, what's your point?

Are you God?

Cos if not then you don't KNOW either... Which is the whole point of the forum...

The problem, my friend - is that you are claiming Judaism as evidence.

Is Judaism the true religion?

Are the Jews right? Is Jesus NOT the Messiah?

If you accept they ARE right - then you can use their scripture to support your own.


On the other hand - you don't get to pick and choose. If you argue that the Jews are misinformed - since they claim Jesus is NOT messiah - then you cannot admit 'their' evidence.

Either their holy writings are true, or false.... which is it?

The Jewish holy writings are, if not the same, then at least very similar to the Old Testament of the Bible...

The separation comes where Jews happen still to be waiting for the messiah, whilst Christians wait for the second coming. Perhaps the interpretations differ, but the texts are similar, as far as i am aware... Correct me if i'm wrong though

Why would that be unlikely?

Do you have to be a fundamentalist to want to share one's religious views?

Since you don't why would it be likely that they ARE fundamentalists?

If it is a fundamentalist source then it's a shame, i'm wary of fundamentalism/extremism since it tends to cause too many problems for the religion being "represented"...

i aplogise for this but after reading much of this thread it has to be said

arguing about religion is like arguing about who's imaginary friend is more real

no evidence, no objective proof. God, or god's in a polytheistic sense may well be real, but it is useless to use any form of document written by man to prove it one way or the other. the bible, and most likely the Koran, and the holy books of mormon, and whatever else, is subject to mankinds inherent socio-political drive for control. however, im not against them, the bible is fantastic inspiration for me, but not in a religious sense. it should never be viewed as the literal word of any "GOD", and thankfully this thread has approached it in a rational manner, accepting its inherent problems and trying to work round them *claps*

darkside

Good point. Nobody can prove or disprove any religion. Theoretically it's impossible to prove anything, since what humans perceive as truth may in fact be an elaborate mask on a more profound reality. But i guess that's not especially relevant anyway?:p

also as for avoiding the Lands of the Gentiles as well as the Samaritans, it's funny that only Mathew mentions this.
Mark 6 holds no such instructions
Luke 9 holds no such instructions
only Mathew. funny isn't it.

and you take the works of one book to be the end all be all of Jesus's works and testimony?


I have to ask if you use this approach throughout scripture, or only when you are faced with a conflict...

Is Matthew lying? Or is he recording truth?

Do you read ALL scripture in that context... if one testimony gives a detail not present elsewhere, or set differently elsewhere - do you 'edit the text' accordingly? I imagine you New Testament would be a much shorter book than most...

and this is also speculation on your part.

Jesus did say he was sent only for the Lost Sheep of Isreal, so why change that to All Nations when he could've just as easily said to the Jews or To the Children of Isreal or to the decendants of Abraham or anything but All nations. then it would be clear that his teachings were meant for Jewish ears only.

Maybe, because the Jews are a 'diaspora-people'... historically they have been fragmented, sent forth, divided, and re-united. One would not JUST look for Jews in the geographical 'nation' of Israel.

and how does he discribe the Gentiles?


I think we covered this before - he is certainly not complimentary. References to dogs and pigs, using them as an anti-ideal...

also why is Mathew the only one to have this restriction on where to go? other books of the Bible that mention his sending out the disciples don't mention this restriction?


Maybe Matthew was the only one who had access to that information? Or maybe - as seems likely to me - most of the text in the Gospels is opinion?


and I don't deny that. after all, He had to tend his Disciples first, however, there is nothing to inidicate that none of the "Multitude" heard his teachings also.

I don't know... you don't climb a mountain awy from the crowds, in order to be closer to them.

If any of the multitude heard, it would be accident rather than design.

Yes, he did die a sinner. Did he sin except on the cross, no.

I know a number of Christians that would argue against you.... personally, I don't see how Jesus can have made this oft-speculated perfect sacrifice, if he was a sinner...

Okay, look at it this way. The Bible was written some hundreds of years ago (and translated/revised numerous times), but the general message still holds true. When two different people read the same Bible, each of them gains from their reading an idea of the entire truth, based on their own activities and life experiences. This is unavoidable; everyone interprets everything differently, as you mentioned before. Now they have in their mind an idea of the absolute truth that is unique unto themselves, and then through a continued life experience based on this knowledge, and through interactions with other people (both Christians and non-Christians), they gain an even greater idea of the absolute truth. This is where, for many, the institutionalized church steps in--it provides a medium through which people can relate their own truth with those of others who share the same faith in order to build and strive to get closer to the absolute truth of the Bible. So yes, the Bible is indeed a 'tool', one that serves to bring each person to God in his or her own way as I described above. As an objective text, it should not be discounted for the truth which it holds, but it must also be remembered that no one living can truly know that absolute truth of the Bible, as human nature allows us only our own interpretation.

Amusingly - if your idea is true - then the fact that I find the Bible to be a moderately-badly-written work of fiction... is God's will...

That point's already been made. But yeah, my bad. The thing is, just cos it wasn't written by a Jew, does that make it wrong? The point i made about it being a Jewish author wasn't even the point of me posting the link... It simply answers your suggestions about the Curse of Jeconiah...

Nobody can truthfully claim to "KNOW" anything... All our science could in fact be one big illusion created to help explain what humans want... So erm, what's your point?

Are you God?

Cos if not then you don't KNOW either... Which is the whole point of the forum...

I appreciate that others had already made the point - I responded when I saw it, and discovered later, that others had made the same points as me.

There is definitely a God.
I'm sorry, but how else do you explain existence in general? Other than saying,
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."

The Jewish holy writings are, if not the same, then at least very similar to the Old Testament of the Bible...

The separation comes where Jews happen still to be waiting for the messiah, whilst Christians wait for the second coming. Perhaps the interpretations differ, but the texts are similar, as far as i am aware... Correct me if i'm wrong though

SOME of the Jewish scripture IS (basically) Old Testament text. But - the Jewish scripture goes far beyond that, material the church doesn't find fit to include in the Biblical canon.

Since those sources belong to a different religion, and are NOT deemed worthy, or consistent... how can you use them to argue Christianity?


It would be like me using the Koran to prove Jesus was not Messiah... something the Muslim and the Jew agree on.

There is definitely a God.
I'm sorry, but how else do you explain existence in general? Other than saying,
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."

How about by saying "In the beginning, there was something - because THAT is what defines the 'beginning'..."?

Or - "In the beginning, there was something. But, we don't know what it was..."?

Haha, I suppose I did. That would be the God of the Christian Bible. (Just out of curiosity though...when God is capitalized doesn't it refer to the Christian one? It may also refer to Allah...seriously, I'm not trying to sound snooty--just curious)
Allah is Arabic for God, as I understand. The only difference is the language.

And I'm slighty guilty of snootiness, too, because I didn't come right out and say that I am a polytheist. So, to that extent, the Christian God and I don't talk to each other at all, but I see no reason why this has to be a monotheists-only discussion. So the "which god?" question wasn't just about semantics, but it wasn't a challenge either. I just wanted you not to assume that everyone you're talking to follows the same traditions.

So if they had not 'sinned' and had saved Jesus from cruxifiction, would that be serving God. Remember, the act of the cruxifiction was preventable, but Jesus asked that it not be prevented. Don't forget that. The cruxifiction was a service to the Lord whether that was the intent of those performing the service or not.

God ordains all thing to happen. He ordained that those who crucified Jesus would do so and that He would use that sin to provide the offer of salvation to all peoples. Even though Jesus came to the Jews and sent messengers to the other peoples.

Of course, all this is found in the scoundrel Paul's writings, so I guess you don't care.

There is definitely a God.
I'm sorry, but how else do you explain existence in general? Other than saying,
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."
Well, you could try using science instead of a fortune cookie saying.

But here's a question for you: Why does existence have to be explained?

Well, you could try using science instead of a fortune cookie saying.

But here's a question for you: Why does existence have to be explained?

'Icky' factor, is my guess.

A lot of people just aren't happy to admit, "Hey, I really don't know!"... it just makes them itchy and uncomfortable.

There is definitely a God.
I'm sorry, but how else do you explain existence in general? Other than saying,
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."
Existence *isn't* explained. It's considered to be an axiom.

*snip*

I answered the point. You didn't like my statement. But then, that isn't my prolem.

Your argument doesn't address the point. He could have worked with the Gentiles frequently and still have not considered them to be a part of his purpose. What instructions did he give the Apostles. To go to the lost sheep. What did he say when a non-Jew asked for help. Sorry, but I'm ONLY here for Jews. Her faith saved her, but Jesus expressly told her he was not there for her.

Ya know? I was just thinking about this here. Could it be perhaps that the Gentiles already had the faith and he came to save Israel who had no faith?

Ya know? I was just thinking about this here. Could it be perhaps that the Gentiles already had the faith and he came to save Israel who had no faith?

It could be. But it isn't scriptural.

It could be. But it isn't scriptural.

But it could be considered implied.

But it could be considered implied.

And it COULD be implied that a good, Jewish boy that wasn't married MUST have been gay...

Is that a precedent we want to set?

And it COULD be implied that a good, Jewish boy that wasn't married MUST have been gay...

Is that a precedent we want to set?

That precedent has already been set. Look at the DaVinci Code.

That precedent has already been set. Look at the DaVinci Code.

Which is a nice piece of literary fiction.

Which is a nice piece of literary fiction.

It isn't ALL fiction, though... any more than the Bible is.

That precedent has already been set. Look at the DaVinci Code.

I think DVC focussed more on the idea he WAS married... rather than the logical conclusions of him being 30, single, and a 'good Jewish boy'.

It isn't ALL fiction, though... any more than the Bible is.

It is in the fiction section of the bookstore. The Bible is not.

It is in the fiction section of the bookstore. The Bible is not.

Neither is the Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

Are you saying ALL religious scriptures are literally true?

the existance of God (or any higher being) is up to the individual...i have heard hundred of people say "why would a "loving God" allow this or that to happen" and there is no answer that will make everyone happy...all i can say is that we aren't meant to know everything...we also, like every living thing on this planet, will die...it happens...and the bitch of it is that no matter when or how it happens...people will say that it "wasn't his/her time"...(not trying to trivialize the suffering of the origional poster, because i have lost loved one's to cancer, car wrecks and other means...so i understand what you are feeling)...because we mourn the loss of our loved ones and we are selfish and don't want to think about our lives without that person...my suggestion is to think about the joy that that person brought to your life and make sure that you can bring that joy to those around you....thats the best way of living....and in living that way, you will (imho) find God...
do i believe in God...yes. Why? Because certain events that have happened in my life has lead me to believe that way...they are personal and many...should that make you belive? not really. the way i live my life might...*shrugs*...these are my thoughts and i know that there will be people who will try to take them apart and try to "prove" that there is no God...and to those people i say that you are wasting your breath with me...nothing that you can say will change my feelings..."closeminded" as you might think that is....they are mine...i am not trying to talk you out of yours...please don't try to with mine...
Speich

SOME of the Jewish scripture IS (basically) Old Testament text. But - the Jewish scripture goes far beyond that, material the church doesn't find fit to include in the Biblical canon.

Since those sources belong to a different religion, and are NOT deemed worthy, or consistent... how can you use them to argue Christianity?


It would be like me using the Koran to prove Jesus was not Messiah... something the Muslim and the Jew agree on.

Just out of curiosity, are you religious at all? If so, what religion?

I see the point ure making there though.

the existance of God (or any higher being) is up to the individual...i have heard hundred of people say "why would a "loving God" allow this or that to happen" and there is no answer that will make everyone happy...all i can say is that we aren't meant to know everything...we also, like every living thing on this planet, will die...it happens...and the bitch of it is that no matter when or how it happens...people will say that it "wasn't his/her time"...(not trying to trivialize the suffering of the origional poster, because i have lost loved one's to cancer, car wrecks and other means...so i understand what you are feeling)...because we mourn the loss of our loved ones and we are selfish and don't want to think about our lives without that person...my suggestion is to think about the joy that that person brought to your life and make sure that you can bring that joy to those around you....thats the best way of living....and in living that way, you will (imho) find God...
do i believe in God...yes. Why? Because certain events that have happened in my life has lead me to believe that way...they are personal and many...should that make you belive? not really. the way i live my life might...*shrugs*...these are my thoughts and i know that there will be people who will try to take them apart and try to "prove" that there is no God...and to those people i say that you are wasting your breath with me...nothing that you can say will change my feelings..."closeminded" as you might think that is....they are mine...i am not trying to talk you out of yours...please don't try to with mine...
Speich

Good bloke. Agreed.

Just out of curiosity, are you religious at all? If so, what religion?

I see the point ure making there though.

He's a "saved" athiest.

He's a "saved" athiest.

His words or yours? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious...

His words or yours? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious...

his actually.

his actually.

Strange concept admittedly. But thanks for the reply.:)

Im gonna respond to what the author of the post is actually talking about...
Of course I believe in God Im catholic, my entire family is...like the author of the post Ive had a person die thats very close to me...Ive had more people than I can count die.
So to the point...its not that you dont believe in God its that youre mad at him which is part of the grieving process( yes theres a grieving process & anger plays a big role) so since I obviously know what Im talking about
being mad at God is a completly seperate thing from not believing in him at all

He's a "saved" athiest.

Aaaah! I look away for a minute, and I'm a page behind! Sorry to leave you to have to clean that one up, my friend. :)

Strange concept admittedly. But thanks for the reply.:)

I'm an Implicit Atheist (I don't say "There is No God", I just don't believe in any).

I was a Christian, and I was 'saved' - if you accept the Baptist idea.

Thus, I am that peculiar creature, a 'saved' Atheist.

Amusingly - if your idea is true - then the fact that I find the Bible to be a moderately-badly-written work of fiction... is God's will...

It's not what you perceive the Bible as is being God's will, but your perception based on what you gain by reading it. Denying its truth is fine, if that's what you believe, but if by reading it you find some meaning and truth that may not be the entire, absolute truth, it is still truth to you because it is your own interpretation of the absolute truth, and that is how God reaches you. Can I get any more confusing? :p

I have to ask if you use this approach throughout scripture, or only when you are faced with a conflict...

Is Matthew lying? Or is he recording truth?

Do you read ALL scripture in that context... if one testimony gives a detail not present elsewhere, or set differently elsewhere - do you 'edit the text' accordingly? I imagine you New Testament would be a much shorter book than most...I take it as a whole, I don't discount any one version being more truthful than others. but what of you, do you only focus on one verse as truth, ignoring other accounts?

Do you only accept "The Truth" only those accounts that fit your view? Why do you attempt to dodge the questions put to you (since you choose to answer for Jocabia) and Jocabia ?

Maybe, because the Jews are a 'diaspora-people'... historically they have been fragmented, sent forth, divided, and re-united. One would not JUST look for Jews in the geographical 'nation' of Israel.
Still speculation on your part. if you take that he means only the Jews, he would not have said All Nations.

and the fact that he would preach to any and all who would listen would discount the fact that his teachings was only for the Jews.

It's not what you perceive the Bible as is being God's will, but your perception based on what you gain by reading it. Denying its truth is fine, if that's what you believe, but if by reading it you find some meaning and truth that may not be the entire, absolute truth, it is still truth to you because it is your own interpretation of the absolute truth, and that is how God reaches you. Can I get any more confusing? :p

It isn't a matter of 'belief', for me - I don't accept the Bible as truth, because it is just not consonant with other histories.

I believe it alludes to real events, often... but that doesn't make it 'literally' true.

and the fact that he would preach to any and all who would listen would discount the fact that his teachings was only for the Jews.

Another good point actually :)

I'm an Implicit Atheist (I don't say "There is No God", I just don't believe in any).

I was a Christian, and I was 'saved' - if you accept the Baptist idea.

Thus, I am that peculiar creature, a 'saved' Atheist.

You were saved FROM Christianity BY Christianity?!?!?! Wait a second.... :p

Fair cop though, what made you change?

I take it as a whole, I don't discount any one version being more truthful than others. but what of you, do you only focus on one verse as truth, ignoring other accounts?

Do you only accept "The Truth" only those accounts that fit your view? Why do you attempt to dodge the questions put to you (since you choose to answer for Jocabia) and Jocabia ?

I'm not sure. What did I dodge?

(I realise I have dropped a number of posts in your recent responses - but those are the ones where you said you were still researching...)

How can you say you 'take it as a whole', when you appear to be trying to discredit Matthew?

Regarding your question: "but what of you, do you only focus on one verse as truth, ignoring other accounts".

A) If I'm not wearing my 'scripture' head, I dismiss any scripture that doesn't agree with OTHER histories... or that requires an extra leap-of-faith, where there is a 'gap'.

B) If I am wearing my 'scripture' head, I dismiss parts of scripture that conflict - I assume there is a fact that neither source is accurate on.

Matthew doesn't 'conflict' the other sources, it just has EXTRA information. I see no legitimate way to argue that evidence away.

Neither is the Koran or Bhagavad Gita.

Are you saying ALL religious scriptures are literally true?

In a word, yes. Ramakrishna said that "God has made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God himself. Indeed, one canreach God if one follows any of the paths with wholehearted devotion...one may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will taste sweet either way."

Still speculation on your part. if you take that he means only the Jews, he would not have said All Nations.

and the fact that he would preach to any and all who would listen would discount the fact that his teachings was only for the Jews.

And, I see him preaching his MESSAGE only to his disciples, and the Jews... although he may have given generally good advice to the heathen, also.

If he meant every person - why not say that? Why not say 'every soul'?

Either one would have been clear. As it is - we are left with a career of saying 'DON'T preach to heathens', and a gesture towards all 'nations'... whatever a 'nation' means.

Surely - we have to see the latter message in the context of the former?

In a word, yes. Ramakrishna said that "God has made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God himself. Indeed, one canreach God if one follows any of the paths with wholehearted devotion...one may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will taste sweet either way."

good quote...im liking it!...

You were saved FROM Christianity BY Christianity?!?!?! Wait a second.... :p

Fair cop though, what made you change?

No... I was 'saved' as a Christian. The Atheism came later.

It was just a realisation that I didn't have faith in any 'god'. And, try though I might to find the truth buried deeper and deeper in the text, all I found was more contradiction, and claims that can ONLY be taken on faith, and not supported if you don't hold the one central assumption.

Which was something I found in other scriptures when I looked. Which leaves me with no reason to believe in ANY of the 'gods' we hear about.

Atheism is just what is left, when you remove the assertion there must be a supreme being.

good quote...im liking it!...

I think that fits well in with your previous post...:)

In a word, yes. Ramakrishna said that "God has made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God himself. Indeed, one canreach God if one follows any of the paths with wholehearted devotion...one may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will taste sweet either way."

Which is fine by me - I certainly consider all scripture 'equal' in accuracy.

But, 'religions' tend to make it explicit that all other religions are false. Both situations cannot be simultaneously true.

the existance of God (or any higher being) is up to the individual...i have heard hundred of people say "why would a "loving God" allow this or that to happen" and there is no answer that will make everyone happy...all i can say is that we aren't meant to know everything...we also, like every living thing on this planet, will die...it happens...and the bitch of it is that no matter when or how it happens...people will say that it "wasn't his/her time"...(not trying to trivialize the suffering of the origional poster, because i have lost loved one's to cancer, car wrecks and other means...so i understand what you are feeling)...because we mourn the loss of our loved ones and we are selfish and don't want to think about our lives without that person...my suggestion is to think about the joy that that person brought to your life and make sure that you can bring that joy to those around you....thats the best way of living....and in living that way, you will (imho) find God...
do i believe in God...yes. Why? Because certain events that have happened in my life has lead me to believe that way...they are personal and many...should that make you belive? not really. the way i live my life might...*shrugs*...these are my thoughts and i know that there will be people who will try to take them apart and try to "prove" that there is no God...and to those people i say that you are wasting your breath with me...nothing that you can say will change my feelings..."closeminded" as you might think that is....they are mine...i am not trying to talk you out of yours...please don't try to with mine...
Speich
Nicely said.

I think we covered this before - he is certainly not complimentary. References to dogs and pigs, using them as an anti-ideal...is this in reference to Mat 7:6?

Maybe Matthew was the only one who had access to that information? Or maybe - as seems likely to me - most of the text in the Gospels is opinion?Maybe, or maybe the accounts in Mathew is showing the writer's own opinions of the Gentiles.

I don't know... you don't climb a mountain awy from the crowds, in order to be closer to them.no, I would go into a Home and close the door to get away from them.

If any of the multitude heard, it would be accident rather than design.or not. if the teachings were only suppose to be to the Disciples, why go to a mountain and not a home where privacy can be insured?

Aaaah! I look away for a minute, and I'm a page behind! Sorry to leave you to have to clean that one up, my friend. :)I know... it takes soo long to catch up and still I miss replies to my posts...:(

Which is fine by me - I certainly consider all scripture 'equal' in accuracy.

But, 'religions' tend to make it explicit that all other religions are false. Both situations cannot be simultaneously true.

Ahh, that seems to be the paradox, no? However I believe you're missing the point--the other religions claim that only theirs is true for the one following that path. It would be impossible to be both a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously...but a Muslim and a Christian who separately live their lives according to the teachings of their faith and to the greatest extent they can are merely using different means to a similar end.

No... I was 'saved' as a Christian. The Atheism came later.

It was just a realisation that I didn't have faith in any 'god'. And, try though I might to find the truth buried deeper and deeper in the text, all I found was more contradiction, and claims that can ONLY be taken on faith, and not supported if you don't hold the one central assumption.

Which was something I found in other scriptures when I looked. Which leaves me with no reason to believe in ANY of the 'gods' we hear about.

Atheism is just what is left, when you remove the assertion there must be a supreme being.

Oh right, i get you now.

That's a shame dude, but at least you've got a reasonable basis for your decision. I'm not totally convinced by the incompatibility of parts of the Bible, or any other sacred text, contradicting itself. But if that's what you've found to be true for yourself then fair enough.

Not sure all that ^^^ makes proper grammatical sense, but don't bother picking me up on that, unless you genuinely can't understand what i was trying to say...!

I guess we'll all find out the truth when we die! :p

First of all, a better question is why would she?

Secondly, the God of the Bible is not a worthy god.

Third, the first hand evidence of the absurdity and suffering of our existence weighs against the existence of a god worthy of worship.

I could go on, but that seems sufficient.
As a Roman Catholic, well, I think God is worthy of worship. He does not decide what I do, He gives me the choice. The absurdity and suffering of our existence is brought upon us by ourselves. Its the choices we make that bring suffering and absurdity, not God. I think God guides us to choose what is good if we are willing to believe in Him, but He does not decide for us.

I'm not sure. What did I dodge?you bring up "in Mathew he says this and that proving whatnot" but at the same time, you also ignore other accounts of his life presented in other Books of the Bible.

(I realise I have dropped a number of posts in your recent responses - but those are the ones where you said you were still researching...)

How can you say you 'take it as a whole', when you appear to be trying to discredit Matthew?I am not trying to discredit Matthew. his is one POV of what happened. the same with the Books of Mark, John, Luke... I, However try not to focus on only one accounting. You however, appear to be trying to discredit all of Jesus's teaching with the book of Matthew.

Regarding your question: "but what of you, do you only focus on one verse as truth, ignoring other accounts".

A) If I'm not wearing my 'scripture' head, I dismiss any scripture that doesn't agree with OTHER histories... or that requires an extra leap-of-faith, where there is a 'gap'.accepted and not argued.

B) If I am wearing my 'scripture' head, I dismiss parts of scripture that conflict - I assume there is a fact that neither source is accurate on.thus the two accountings in Mark and Luke then would make the instructions about avoiding Gentiles and Samaratans in Matthew false in your reasoning.

Matthew doesn't 'conflict' the other sources, it just has EXTRA information. I see no legitimate way to argue that evidence away.and there is no proof to show either way that the extra information is either true or not.
so are you infact, taking a Leap-of-Faith that the extra information is true since it's not mentioned in other accounts of the same event?

In a word, yes. Ramakrishna said that "God has made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God himself. Indeed, one canreach God if one follows any of the paths with wholehearted devotion...one may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will taste sweet either way."
In other words, Universalism, yes?

I think DVC focussed more on the idea he WAS married... rather than the logical conclusions of him being 30, single, and a 'good Jewish boy'.

I was speaking to the idea of:The Bible doesn't say anything about this, so it must be true.

Naturally, that's not the reasoning behind such conjecture, but it might as well be.

'Icky' factor, is my guess.

A lot of people just aren't happy to admit, "Hey, I really don't know!"... it just makes them itchy and uncomfortable.
Yeah, well, there are powders for that.

is this in reference to Mat 7:6?


As an example.

Maybe, or maybe the accounts in Mathew is showing the writer's own opinions of the Gentiles.


In which case, we are admitting that the 'truth' of the Bible is negotiable - and some parts might just be bias by the authors.

A dangerous direction for a Christian to take, I'd have thought... since all the Gospels are attributed to people with a vested interest, and the scripture is the only evidence for a 'crucified messiah'.

no, I would go into a Home and close the door to get away from them. or not. if the teachings were only suppose to be to the Disciples, why go to a mountain and not a home where privacy can be insured?

Poosibly. Of course, both Matthew AND Luke are fairly clear that the gathering was on a plain, either before or after the mountain. Not in a town. A mountain might be as 'secure' as it could get.

In a word, yes. Ramakrishna said that "God has made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God himself. Indeed, one canreach God if one follows any of the paths with wholehearted devotion...one may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will taste sweet either way."
Well chosen quote, thanks.

Ahh, that seems to be the paradox, no? However I believe you're missing the point--the other religions claim that only theirs is true for the one following that path. It would be impossible to be both a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously...but a Muslim and a Christian who separately live their lives according to the teachings of their faith and to the greatest extent they can are merely using different means to a similar end.

But - with Christianity as the obvious example - the Bible explicitly claims ALL other paths are lies, and ONLY their own approach is valid.

Which is fine by me - I certainly consider all scripture 'equal' in accuracy.

But, 'religions' tend to make it explicit that all other religions are false. Both situations cannot be simultaneously true.
Except for the few religions that say specifically the opposite of that. Buddhism, some Hindu traditions, and many of the animist religions, for instance.

Oh right, i get you now.

That's a shame dude, but at least you've got a reasonable basis for your decision. I'm not totally convinced by the incompatibility of parts of the Bible, or any other sacred text, contradicting itself. But if that's what you've found to be true for yourself then fair enough.

Not sure all that ^^^ makes proper grammatical sense, but don't bother picking me up on that, unless you genuinely can't understand what i was trying to say...!

I guess we'll all find out the truth when we die! :p

Why is it a shame? I'm not unhappy with my situation - and it hasn't stopped me looking for the answers.

Sometimes it would be 'comfortable' to have a religion to fall back on, but I'm not going to pay lipservice to a faith because life has ups and downs.

Ahh, that seems to be the paradox, no? However I believe you're missing the point--the other religions claim that only theirs is true for the one following that path. It would be impossible to be both a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously...but a Muslim and a Christian who separately live their lives according to the teachings of their faith and to the greatest extent they can are merely using different means to a similar end.
If you start from the viewpoint of a Christian or a Muslim, then you cannot be both, but if you start from a universalist viewpoint, such as described in your Ramakrishna quote, then you can, because the different religions become nothing more than vehicles for traveling on a road. From the universalist point of view, there is no rule that says you can't switch vehicles from time to time. Many Buddhist sects hold this view, and most of the animist religions do, too. In fact, in many animist societies, it is perfectly okay to practice two or more separate religions at the same time.

But - with Christianity as the obvious example - the Bible explicitly claims ALL other paths are lies, and ONLY their own approach is valid.
Yes, Christianity does that. It's another of the reasons I rejected it. Many other religions do it, too, but some do not.

you bring up "in Mathew he says this and that proving whatnot" but at the same time, you also ignore other accounts of his life presented in other Books of the Bible.


Do those other accounts tell Jesus (at the same rough chronology) teaching one MUST preach to the Gentile?


I am not trying to discredit Matthew. his is one POV of what happened. the same with the Books of Mark, John, Luke... I, However try not to focus on only one accounting. You however, appear to be trying to discredit all of Jesus's teaching with the book of Matthew.


Not at all - there are places where scriptures directly clash - that is one thing - but Mark and Luke... I don't recall them saying the events in Matthew did NOT happen.


thus the two accountings in Mark and Luke then would make the instructions about avoiding Gentiles and Samaratans in Matthew false in your reasoning.


Again - do they explicitly state Matthew to be incorrect, or that a different event took place... or do they just have 'gaps'?


and there is no proof to show either way that the extra information is either true or not.
so are you infact, taking a Leap-of-Faith that the extra information is true since it's not mentioned in other accounts of the same event?

There is no way to show ANY of it is true or not. We have to make certain assumptions to debate WITHIN the scriptural context.

Ironically - you are preaching something similar to my TRUE thoughts, here... that one should not accept anything we can't verify.

Except, I say we should do it to the whole book, and you think it acceptable to do it only within the book.

Why is it a shame? I'm not unhappy with my situation - and it hasn't stopped me looking for the answers.

Sometimes it would be 'comfortable' to have a religion to fall back on, but I'm not going to pay lipservice to a faith because life has ups and downs.

No i know, it's good that you've spent the time to work it out for yourself and reached a conclusion which you're comfortable with. It's just a shame that you've been dissatisfied by religion whilst looking for the answers. I don't quite know how to explain what i mean, but that vaguely explains my point. :confused:

To be honest i'm not sure religion has been much of a cushion for me in my life. Sure i'll pray to God about stuff, but that hasn't stopped life being a complete shit sometimes...

Except for the few religions that say specifically the opposite of that. Buddhism, some Hindu traditions, and many of the animist religions, for instance.

That's why I say religions 'tend' to do it. I know not ALL religions do. I have Wiccan friends who are very inclusive of other religions... one even manages to reconcile a form of Christianity with her Wiccan ideas.

The 'problem' as I see it is: Religion A is accepting, and says ALL religions might have some truth... but Religion B says only Religion B is true, and Religion A is obviously lies...

All religions cannot be equal. They cannot all be true, when some of them insist that others must be false.

Or - am I confusing matters further?

No i know, it's good that you've spent the time to work it out for yourself and reached a conclusion which you're comfortable with. It's just a shame that you've been dissatisfied by religion whilst looking for the answers. I don't quite know how to explain what i mean, but that vaguely explains my point. :confused:


I think you are saying YOU have found a path that works for you, and you want everyone to have a path that works - and you think yours might be it... so you think it a shame that I don't seem to be able to make it work for me... maybe?

For me - I don't really have any concerns about the specific path another follows... let each find their own 'truth'... if there is one.


To be honest i'm not sure religion has been much of a cushion for me in my life. Sure i'll pray to God about stuff, but that hasn't stopped life being a complete shit sometimes...

But, even when life is shit, you know it is 'part of some big plan'? That 'God won't put upon us more than we can bear'? That it is hard now, but there is an eternal reward to look forward to?

All of those are things that would be nice to have... some assurances. Some comfort, when things are rough. Being an Atheist isn't an easy alternative.

That's why I say religions 'tend' to do it. I know not ALL religions do. I have Wiccan friends who are very inclusive of other religions... one even manages to reconcile a form of Christianity with her Wiccan ideas.

The 'problem' as I see it is: Religion A is accepting, and says ALL religions might have some truth... but Religion B says only Religion B is true, and Religion A is obviously lies...

All religions cannot be equal. They cannot all be true, when some of them insist that others must be false.

Or - am I confusing matters further?
You're not confusing matters. They were confusing to begin with. :)

It is always a problem when A says "I accept you," but B says, "Well, I don't accept you -- die, scum!" But I see that as a problem with humans, not necessarily with religion per se.

I think the universalist viewpoint is based on the basic assumption that "religions" -- their beliefs, myths, texts, rituals, etc. -- are just symbols of something, not the thing itself. Therefore, the concept of "TRUE" does not really apply to them, except in some very indirect ways mostly of interest to symbologists and psychologists.

When you don't think "This thing here, this IS The Truth," then you can pretty much live by my favorite line from novelist Lawrence Sterne:

"Life's too short to be long about the forms of it."

So what is the attitude I take, then? Live and let live, but not to the extent of taking other people's crap. A person can be as narrow-minded and as certain that I'm going to burn in hell as they like, so long as they just badmouth me behind my back and don't try to "save" me or burn the infidel or anything like that. If they come to me with an open mind, ready to converse, they'll find the same waiting for them. If they come at me waving their books and trying to push me around, they're going to get pushed back.

I think you and I are on the same page on this, right?

I think you are saying YOU have found a path that works for you, and you want everyone to have a path that works - and you think yours might be it... so you think it a shame that I don't seem to be able to make it work for me... maybe?

For me - I don't really have any concerns about the specific path another follows... let each find their own 'truth'... if there is one.
So you have found a path that works for YOU, then. Everybody happy.

But, even when life is shit, you know it is 'part of some big plan'? That 'God won't put upon us more than we can bear'? That it is hard now, but there is an eternal reward to look forward to?

All of those are things that would be nice to have... some assurances. Some comfort, when things are rough. Being an Atheist isn't an easy alternative.
You should take up Stoicism. "Does aught befall you? ...something, something...Great Web... blah, blah..." ;) The philosophy racket is the biggest in the world. There's something out there for everyone.

In other words, Universalism, yes?

Well, no, not really. Universalism implies that all will be saved and achieve salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ. However, what I was saying earlier was that so long as that path is adhered to with utter devotion, then each person may reach God through a different path.

You're not confusing matters. They were confusing to begin with. :)

It is always a problem when A says "I accept you," but B says, "Well, I don't accept you -- die, scum!" But I see that as a problem with humans, not necessarily with religion per se.

I think the universalist viewpoint is based on the basic assumption that "religions" -- their beliefs, myths, texts, rituals, etc. -- are just symbols of something, not the thing itself. Therefore, the concept of "TRUE" does not really apply to them, except in some very indirect ways mostly of interest to symbologists and psychologists.

When you don't think "This thing here, this IS The Truth," then you can pretty much live by my favorite line from novelist Lawrence Sterne:

"Life's too short to be long about the forms of it."

So what is the attitude I take, then? Live and let live, but not to the extent of taking other people's crap. A person can be as narrow-minded and as certain that I'm going to burn in hell as they like, so long as they just badmouth me behind my back and don't try to "save" me or burn the infidel or anything like that. If they come to me with an open mind, ready to converse, they'll find the same waiting for them. If they come at me waving their books and trying to push me around, they're going to get pushed back.

I think you and I are on the same page on this, right?

Yes... exactly the same page, I think. I'm just a little more skeptical overall.

The problem arises, I think, when 'ideas' become 'facts'... when a thought-system becomes a 'history'. Again hitting on Christianity... a lot of good thoughts, but once it 'becomes' a book, it is formal and solid - there is no 'play' in it any more, no tolerance to different ideas.

Now, you can say why a thing is wrong... NOT because it is empirically bad, or because someone get's hurt, or because it is anti-pragmatic... but because this formalised document says so. It is ironic, but scripture is the enemy of faith. Well - at least, when you take it as Gospel.

Is there a what? I don't understand the question.

Why Does God Permit Suffering?

The Bible assures us that "God is love." (1 John 4:8) Why, then, has a loving God allowed all this suffering to continue for so many centuries? When will he remedy the situation? To answer such questions, we need to examine God's purpose with regard to humans. This will help us to understand why God has allowed suffering and what he will do about it.

The Gift of Free Will

When God created the first human, he produced more than just a body with a brain. Further, God did not create Adam and Eve to be mindless robots. He implanted in them the faculty of free will. And that was a fine gift, for "God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Yes, "perfect is his activity." (Deuteronomy 32:4) All of us appreciate this gift of free will because we do not want all our thoughts and actions dictated to us without ever having a choice in anything.
However, was the fine gift of free will to be used without limits? In directions given to early Christians, God's Word answers: "Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for badness, but as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:16) For the common good, there must be boundaries. Hence, free will was to be regulated by the rule of law.

Whose Law?

Whose law was to determine the proper limits of freedom? The answer to this question has to do with the fundamental reason why God has permitted suffering. Since God created humans, he knows best what laws they need to obey for their own good and for the good of others. The Bible puts it this way: "I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk."—Isaiah 48:17.
Clearly, a vital point is this: Humans were not created to be independent of God. He made them in such a way that their success and happiness depend on obedience to his righteous laws. God's prophet Jeremiah said: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."—Jeremiah 10:23.
God made mankind subject to his physical laws, such as the law of gravity. Similarly, he made humans to be subject to his moral laws, which are designed to result in a harmonious society. For good reason, then, God's Word urges: "Trust in Jehovah with all your heart and do not lean upon your own understanding."—Proverbs 3:5.
Thus, the human family could never be successful in regulating itself without God's rulership. Trying to be independent from him, people would devise social, economic, political, and religious systems that would conflict with one another, and 'man would dominate man to his injury.'—Ecclesiastes 8:9.

What Went Wrong?

God gave our first parents, Adam and Eve, a perfect start. They had perfect bodies and minds and a paradise garden for a home. If they had submitted to God's rule, they would have remained perfect and happy. In time, they would have been the parents of an entire perfect, happy human family living on a paradise earth. That was God's purpose for the human race.—Genesis 1:27-29; 2:15.
However, our original ancestors misused their free will. They wrongly thought that they could be successful independent of God. Of their own free will, they stepped outside the boundaries of his laws. (Genesis, chapter 3) Because they rejected his rulership, he no longer was obligated to sustain them in perfection. 'They acted ruinously on their own part, did not remain his children, and the defect was their own.'—Deuteronomy 32:5.
From the time they disobeyed God, Adam and Eve began to degenerate in body and mind. With Jehovah is the source of life. (Psalm 36:9) So because of cutting themselves off from Jehovah, the first human couple became imperfect and eventually died. (Genesis 3:19) Consistent with laws of genetic inheritance, their offspring could receive only what their parents themselves possessed. And what was that? It was imperfection and death. The apostle Paul therefore wrote: "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."—Romans 5:12.

The Main Issue—Sovereignty

When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they challenged his sovereignty, that is, his right to rule. Jehovah could have destroyed them and started over with another couple, but that would not have settled the issue of whose rulership is right and best for people. Granted time to develop their societies according to their own ideas, humans would demonstrate beyond any doubt whether rulership independent from God could ever be successful.
What do thousands of years of human history tell us? For all those centuries, people have tried many kinds of social, economic, political, and religious systems. However, wickedness and suffering have continued. In fact, 'wicked men have advanced from bad to worse,' especially in our time.—2 Timothy 3:13.
The 20th century saw a peak of scientific and industrial achievements. But it also saw the worst suffering in the entire history of the human race. And no matter what medical advances are made, the law of God still holds true: Humans separated from God—the source of life—get sick, grow old, and die. How clearly it has been proved that humans cannot 'direct their own steps'!

God's Sovereignty Asserted

Once and for all time, this tragic experiment in independence from God has demonstrated that rulership by humans apart from him can never succeed. Only God's rulership can bring happiness, unity, health, and life. Moreover, Jehovah God's infallible Word, the Holy Bible, shows that we are living in "the last days" of human rule independent from God. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Jehovah's toleration of this and of wickedness and suffering is nearing its end.
God will soon intervene in human affairs. The Scriptures tell us: "In the days of those kings [human rulerships now existing] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [in heaven] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people [never again will humans rule the earth]. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [present rulerships], and it itself will stand to times indefinite."—Daniel 2:44.
The vindication of Jehovah God's sovereignty by means of the heavenly Kingdom is the Bible's theme. Jesus made this his foremost teaching. He said: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."—Matthew 24:14.
When God's rulership replaces man's rule, who will survive and who will not? At Proverbs 2:21, 22, we are assured: "The upright [who uphold God's rule] are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked [who do not uphold God's rule], they will be cut off from the very earth." The divinely inspired psalmist sang: "Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more . . . But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."—Psalm 37:10, 11, 29.

A Marvelous New World

Under the rulership of God's Kingdom, survivors of the end of the present system of things will be ushered into an earth cleansed of wickedness and suffering. God-given instruction will be provided for mankind, and in time "the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea." (Isaiah 11:9) This upbuilding, positive teaching will result in a truly peaceful, harmonious human society. Thus, there will be no more war, murder, violence, rape, theft, or any other crime.
Marvelous physical benefits will flow to obedient humans living in God's new world. There will be a canceling out of all the bad consequences of rebellion against God's rule. Imperfection, sickness, old age, and death will be things of the past. The Bible assures us: "No resident will say: 'I am sick.'" Moreover, the Scriptures promise: "At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness." (Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6) What a thrill it will be to enjoy vibrant health every day—forever!
Under God's loving direction, the inhabitants of that new world will use their energies and skills in building an earth-wide paradise. Gone forever will be poverty, hunger, and homelessness, for Isaiah's prophecy states: "They will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating." (Isaiah 65:21, 22) Indeed, "they will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble."—Micah 4:4.
The earth will respond to the loving care of God and obedient humans. We have these Scriptural assurances: "The wilderness and the waterless region will exult, and the desert plain will be joyful and blossom as the saffron. . . . In the wilderness waters will have burst out, and torrents in the desert plain." (Isaiah 35:1, 6) "There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth; on the top of the mountains there will be an overflow."—Psalm 72:16.
What about the billions of people who have died? Those in God's memory will be brought back to life, for "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) Yes, the dead will be restored to life. They will be taught the wonderful truths regarding God's rulership and be given the opportunity to live forever in Paradise.—John 5:28, 29.

The Failure of Human Rule

Regarding human rulership, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated: "We humans . . . have always only partially governed the world, and most of the time very badly. . . . We have never governed it in total peace." Human Development Report 1999 noted: "All countries report erosion of their social fabric, with social unrest, more crime, more violence in the home. . . . Global threats are increasing, outgrowing national abilities to tackle them, and outpacing international responses."
By these means, Jehovah God will completely reverse the awful condition of suffering, sickness, and death that has held mankind in its grip for thousands of years. No more sickness! No more disabilities! No more death! God "will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things [will] have passed away."—Revelation 21:3, 4.
That is how God will end suffering. He will destroy this corrupt world and usher in an entirely new system of things in which "righteousness is to dwell." (2 Peter 3:13) What good news this is! We desperately need that new world. And we will not have to wait long to see it. From the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, we know that the new world is at the door, and God's permission of suffering is nearing its end.—Matthew 24:3-14.

"They will
indeed find their
exquisite delight in
the abundance
of peace."
—Psalm 37:11

As an example.can you provide any examples outside of Matthew of the calling of Gentiles Pigs and Dogs?

as well as supply proof that Pigs and Dogs in Mat 7:6 that this is in reference to Gentiles and not anyone who disreguard the teachings of Christ?

In which case, we are admitting that the 'truth' of the Bible is negotiable - and some parts might just be bias by the authors.

A dangerous direction for a Christian to take, I'd have thought... since all the Gospels are attributed to people with a vested interest, and the scripture is the only evidence for a 'crucified messiah'.
I've maintained in other threads that what one gets out of the bible is what one wants to get out of the bible. People against Homosexuality can find support for their cause as well as those who support Homosexuality.
the Bible is a guide, yes. but it's not meant to be used alone. prayer is also needed. (as I've also said in other threads... including this one I believe.)

Poosibly. Of course, both Matthew AND Luke are fairly clear that the gathering was on a plain, either before or after the mountain. Not in a town. A mountain might be as 'secure' as it could get.and then if it was a mountain. it might have been on a hilltop for all we know.
(someone posted earlier that there was no "mountain" in the area which might prove that it may have been a hilltop or a rise... if at all.) but the where does not matter to the sermon given.

Yes... exactly the same page, I think. I'm just a little more skeptical overall.

The problem arises, I think, when 'ideas' become 'facts'... when a thought-system becomes a 'history'. Again hitting on Christianity... a lot of good thoughts, but once it 'becomes' a book, it is formal and solid - there is no 'play' in it any more, no tolerance to different ideas.

Now, you can say why a thing is wrong... NOT because it is empirically bad, or because someone get's hurt, or because it is anti-pragmatic... but because this formalised document says so. It is ironic, but scripture is the enemy of faith. Well - at least, when you take it as Gospel.
This is entirely true, and also funny. :D

Some more background about me:

Based on the upbringing I outlined earlier in the thread, I obviously had to pick my own path without following anyone else's lead. Despite the fact that I am one of the most rock-hard-headed realists of my acquaintance (I think I spent two weeks playing role-playing make-believe games before I decided they were stupidly unreal, and that was before I was 8 years old), I still feel an instinct towards experiences that are not measurable or describable. It's why I make the kind of art that I do, and it's why I say that the literal existence or non-existence of god is an irrelevant question.

I don't really, in any literal sense, know what my instincts are referring to, but i do know that the instincts themselves are real. They exist as functions of my brain and my body. And because they are real, I cannot ignore them. My mindset requires that my concept of reality must match reality and account for all of reality, as much as possible. Any concept of reality that can be shown to fall short is not valid. It can purport to be bigger than reality, but it can't be less than reality.

So, although I do not believe in the gods and spiritual cosmos (plural of that?) and spiritual progressions as described in most formalized religions, I could not be satisfied with strict atheism either.

As I think you know, I eventually settled on animism because its concept of a spiritual cosmos fits the instinctive leanings I already had. It has some other features I like, too, and the most important of these, the Biggest Selling Point, which made me glom right onto it, is:

There is no such thing as an animist scripture.

Animism is a spiritual philosophy. Individual animist religions are extremely localized and personal. In fact, there are distinct animist religions specific to just one family group or clan, like species of frogs that exist in only one pond on the planet. It is the most non-organized recognized religion in the world, and even among the more organized traditions, like Shinto, there is no liturgy, no canon. They make it all up on the spot, for any given occasion.

Because there is nothing written and declared to be The Truth (tm) or The Way (tm), there is no way for one animist to point to another (or anyone else, for that matter) and say, "You're doing it wrong."

Do those other accounts tell Jesus (at the same rough chronology) teaching one MUST preach to the Gentile?only through his actions.

Not at all - there are places where scriptures directly clash - that is one thing - but Mark and Luke... I don't recall them saying the events in Matthew did NOT happen.and neither do they support it.

Again - do they explicitly state Matthew to be incorrect, or that a different event took place... or do they just have 'gaps'?
Chonologically, according to events in all three books, they are the same event, with the same purpose. Only the instructions in Mathew are different.

There is no way to show ANY of it is true or not. We have to make certain assumptions to debate WITHIN the scriptural context.

Ironically - you are preaching something similar to my TRUE thoughts, here... that one should not accept anything we can't verify.

Except, I say we should do it to the whole book, and you think it acceptable to do it only within the book.which requires a certain leap-of-faith.

Except we seem to differ on methods of Verification. I use prayer, you seem to use the literal translation of the text written.

I am not the one Judging Jesus and his actions solely on one Book (Matthew) you and Jocabia are.

You bet your bottom dollar I believe and have faith in God. I mean...what else is there that can give you that kind of insurrance?

Maybe this is just me, but I think Posts 7096 and 7097 make the funniest juxtaposition of this whole thread. :D

So you have found a path that works for YOU, then. Everybody happy.


Yes... my path seems to be working, so far. Not that I could change it, if it wasn't so hot... you don't get to 'choose' what you want to believe.


You should take up Stoicism. "Does aught befall you? ...something, something...Great Web... blah, blah..." ;) The philosophy racket is the biggest in the world. There's something out there for everyone.

Actually - Stoicism is close to where I was for a number of years - but I consider the premise flawed. Yes - by distancing ourselves from pleasure and pain we make it easier to focus on other things. By exerting rigid self-control and detachment, we find a more 'objective' route.

And some of those things still stick with me...

But - distancing, and detaching are all well and good - in moderation - so long as you don't entirely avoid the process of being human, also.

At least - that's my thought on the matter. :)

Yes... my path seems to be working, so far. Not that I could change it, if it wasn't so hot... you don't get to 'choose' what you want to believe.
Lewis Carroll might disagree with you on that, but don't listen to me. I'm a surrealist. I'll only drive you crazy. I'm typing this while listening to a disco mix of the Star Wars soundtrack. I have no credibility. ;)

Actually - Stoicism is close to where I was for a number of years - but I consider the premise flawed. Yes - by distancing ourselves from pleasure and pain we make it easier to focus on other things. By exerting rigid self-control and detachment, we find a more 'objective' route.

And some of those things still stick with me...

But - distancing, and detaching are all well and good - in moderation - so long as you don't entirely avoid the process of being human, also.

At least - that's my thought on the matter. :)
Well, keep shopping. I shopped for over 35 years for a philosophy that fit me to my taste (pretty much the same way I shop for shoes). And I still like to go browsing.

can you provide any examples outside of Matthew of the calling of Gentiles Pigs and Dogs?

as well as supply proof that Pigs and Dogs in Mat 7:6 that this is in reference to Gentiles and not anyone who disreguard the teachings of Christ?


Having read around the subject, looking at the vocabulary of the time, and having talked to persons much closer to the 'Jewish' extraction than I (the last generation of my familial line that 'practised' is about two generations remove) it seems that 'dogs' is a common euphemism for 'goyim' or Gentile - which would be anyone not Jewish.

As for references outside of Matthew... I'm not sure - but I don't see it as important. Unless one of the other sources expressly contradicts Matthew, shouldn't we take every word of Matthew as equally reliable as any other word?


I've maintained in other threads that what one gets out of the bible is what one wants to get out of the bible. People against Homosexuality can find support for their cause as well as those who support Homosexuality.
the Bible is a guide, yes. but it's not meant to be used alone. prayer is also needed. (as I've also said in other threads... including this one I believe.)


That doesn't really approach what I asked... you seem to be admitting that the Gospels might not be 'true', in a literal sense... or at least, of variable degree of 'factual' accuracy.

If the Gospels ARE 'negotiable'... what makes the crucifixion anything more than a good story?


and then if it was a mountain. it might have been on a hilltop for all we know.
(someone posted earlier that there was no "mountain" in the area which might prove that it may have been a hilltop or a rise... if at all.) but the where does not matter to the sermon given.

Well - Matthew says 'oros' - mountain, or mount or hill. So - it is not too specific. But, regardless - if Jesus scales a hill, mount or mountain, he is lifting himself away from the multitude, and seeking closer association only with his disciples.

I think Ashmoria presented sources suggesting possible 'rise' locations... but, of course, it all relies on the story being where it should be in the geography and chronology of the scripture, and the fact that the hill or mountain isn't PURELY a narrative trick.

This is entirely true, and also funny. :D

Some more background about me:

Based on the upbringing I outlined earlier in the thread, I obviously had to pick my own path without following anyone else's lead. Despite the fact that I am one of the most rock-hard-headed realists of my acquaintance (I think I spent two weeks playing role-playing make-believe games before I decided they were stupidly unreal, and that was before I was 8 years old), I still feel an instinct towards experiences that are not measurable or describable. It's why I make the kind of art that I do, and it's why I say that the literal existence or non-existence of god is an irrelevant question.

I don't really, in any literal sense, know what my instincts are referring to, but i do know that the instincts themselves are real. They exist as functions of my brain and my body. And because they are real, I cannot ignore them. My mindset requires that my concept of reality must match reality and account for all of reality, as much as possible. Any concept of reality that can be shown to fall short is not valid. It can purport to be bigger than reality, but it can't be less than reality.

So, although I do not believe in the gods and spiritual cosmos (plural of that?) and spiritual progressions as described in most formalized religions, I could not be satisfied with strict atheism either.

As I think you know, I eventually settled on animism because its concept of a spiritual cosmos fits the instinctive leanings I already had. It has some other features I like, too, and the most important of these, the Biggest Selling Point, which made me glom right onto it, is:

There is no such thing as an animist scripture.

Animism is a spiritual philosophy. Individual animist religions are extremely localized and personal. In fact, there are distinct animist religions specific to just one family group or clan, like species of frogs that exist in only one pond on the planet. It is the most non-organized recognized religion in the world, and even among the more organized traditions, like Shinto, there is no liturgy, no canon. They make it all up on the spot, for any given occasion.

Because there is nothing written and declared to be The Truth (tm) or The Way (tm), there is no way for one animist to point to another (or anyone else, for that matter) and say, "You're doing it wrong."

Which sounds like the perfect form of religion... something that is personal interaction between whatever god or gods happen to be involved in the process.

For me - the differences between these aspects of our stories, would be a willingness to accept something 'less than reality', on my part - and a 'content' found in Atheism... not the hardcore Explicit "THERE IS NO GOD" Atheism, which is just as bad as ANY of the formalised fundamental mindsets, but the general acceptance that 'hey... I just don't believe in any of y'all'. :)

To me, gods are like grufnigs. In orer to state your position on the whole 'grufnig issue', I'd have to give you some more details... you can't spontaneously form an opinion on grufnigs EXCEPT that you just don't know anything. By default, you do not accept any of the premises concerned with grufnig wisdom.

Not denying Grufnigs, of course... that would be silly - you don't have enough information to REJECT them. But, also not embracing the concept... until I let you know more about what I've found out about them.

You've never seen them in the wild... as far as you know. You have heard some stories that CLAIM to be, or that MIGHT be, about Grufnigs... but were they talking about the same things I'm describing?

Of course - once you learn about grufnigs... you'll find out that no one else has PHYSICALLY seen them, either... although you hear a story about a friend-of-a-friend, that might have. And... a lot of the sotries just don't match up.

So - the situation is: there is a world, that works with or without learning anything more about grufnigs. There is no way to empirically prove that they exist. Even those who claim they do - cannot agree on what exactly they might be.

The question is: Why do I even NEED to have a perspective on the matter? Do I even need to ACCEPT that ANY story about grufnigs might be true? Isn't it JUST as likely that there are no grufnigs, and the world is just 'as it is'?

Not DENYING grufnigs. Just... not accepting them.

Ba-da-boom: Implicit Atheism, for Grufnigs.

Animism is a spiritual philosophy. Individual animist religions are extremely localized and personal. In fact, there are distinct animist religions specific to just one family group or clan, like species of frogs that exist in only one pond on the planet. It is the most non-organized recognized religion in the world, and even among the more organized traditions, like Shinto, there is no liturgy, no canon. They make it all up on the spot, for any given occasion.
How do you learn anything about it, then (as anything you learn about it would be "the way")?

Because there is nothing written and declared to be The Truth (tm) or The Way (tm), there is no way for one animist to point to another (or anyone else, for that matter) and say, "You're doing it wrong."

only through his actions.


His actions are not necessarily the actions he wished for his disciples, now, are they?


and neither do they support it.


I could say the same thing about all the contemporary evidence that is NOT in the scripture.... as regarding the veracity of the scripture, collective.


Chonologically, according to events in all three books, they are the same event, with the same purpose. Only the instructions in Mathew are different.


Different? Or just more complete?


which requires a certain leap-of-faith.

Except we seem to differ on methods of Verification. I use prayer, you seem to use the literal translation of the text written.


My 'leap-of-faith' would be what? That I don't MAKE a leap-of-faith? I don't want to necessarily accept ANY of the text without corroboration... and that refusal to take the word of the text, for the VERACITY of the text... is a leap-of-faith?


I am not the one Judging Jesus and his actions solely on one Book (Matthew) you and Jocabia are.

Would you burn your bible, turn your back on it's teachings, and follow the 'spirit' of Jesus without any written guidance?

No - because you ARE judging Jesus and his actions because of what you read in one book... the whole Bible as a complete text.

Lewis Carroll might disagree with you on that, but don't listen to me. I'm a surrealist. I'll only drive you crazy. I'm typing this while listening to a disco mix of the Star Wars soundtrack. I have no credibility. ;)


Considering that most of what I know about Carroll is that he wrote the Alice stories, and that I personally think (at the risk of being typecast) that Johnny Depp should play him if they ever make a film... I'll take your word for it. :)


Well, keep shopping. I shopped for over 35 years for a philosophy that fit me to my taste (pretty much the same way I shop for shoes). And I still like to go browsing.

I'm still shopping... although, for me, the parallel would be movies of music. (Although I do occassionally browse New Rock boots...

(Example: http://www.cloggs.co.uk/bin/venda?ex=co_disp-view&invt=2267&bsref=cloggs)

Having read around the subject, looking at the vocabulary of the time, and having talked to persons much closer to the 'Jewish' extraction than I (the last generation of my familial line that 'practised' is about two generations remove) it seems that 'dogs' is a common euphemism for 'goyim' or Gentile - which would be anyone not Jewish.

As for references outside of Matthew... I'm not sure - but I don't see it as important. Unless one of the other sources expressly contradicts Matthew, shouldn't we take every word of Matthew as equally reliable as any other word?so you are speculating then, when also taking into account the animostiy between the Jews and Gentiles, that any and all references to Pig and Dog has to mean Gentiles and other Non-Jews


That doesn't really approach what I asked... you seem to be admitting that the Gospels might not be 'true', in a literal sense... or at least, of variable degree of 'factual' accuracy.I never stated that I followed the Bible Literally. However, I also never judged anyone by what the bible has written.

If the Gospels ARE 'negotiable'... what makes the crucifixion anything more than a good story?if you're asking, is there any truth to the crucifixtion/resurrection? well, you have people studying those sites as well as the artifacts found.

Well - Matthew says 'oros' - mountain, or mount or hill. So - it is not too specific. But, regardless - if Jesus scales a hill, mount or mountain, he is lifting himself away from the multitude, and seeking closer association only with his disciples.he also was walking away from them, so are you also indicating that he was fleeing the Multitude? and how dare all those Public Speakers lift themselves away from their audiences by assending stages and other forms of Platforms, Here I thought it was so that they can be seen and heard... but obviously that is also wrong because the only reason someone climbs something is to get away from the others. :p

I think Ashmoria presented sources suggesting possible 'rise' locations... but, of course, it all relies on the story being where it should be in the geography and chronology of the scripture, and the fact that the hill or mountain isn't PURELY a narrative trick.and really isn't an important detail when considering what Jesus was saying. would it make a difference if he was on a plain, in a synogogue or on a boat talking to those on shore?

His actions are not necessarily the actions he wished for his disciples, now, are they?when dealing with the Gentiles? of course they were.

I could say the same thing about all the contemporary evidence that is NOT in the scripture.... as regarding the veracity of the scripture, collective.and most likely you would be right. however, most Miracles are personal in nature. which is why most cannot be proven or disproven.

Different? Or just more complete?that's up to the reader. I say different, (which also may mean More Complete.)

My 'leap-of-faith' would be what? That I don't MAKE a leap-of-faith? I don't want to necessarily accept ANY of the text without corroboration... and that refusal to take the word of the text, for the VERACITY of the text... is a leap-of-faith?that you are insisting that Matthew is more complete and focusing only on one book where other books don't indicate that hatred. even Jesus's reply to the Canaanite woman is softer and less insulting in Mark and Luke than in Matthew? does that make Matthew's accounting Correct? or just Different?

Would you burn your bible, turn your back on it's teachings, and follow the 'spirit' of Jesus without any written guidance?well, I didn't burn my bible. but I have recieved Guidance outside of the Bible.

No - because you ARE judging Jesus and his actions because of what you read in one book... the whole Bible as a complete text.and you are judging Jesus and is teachings by one book of the whole bible. a part of the whole complete text.

so you are speculating then, when also taking into account the animostiy between the Jews and Gentiles, that any and all references to Pig and Dog has to mean Gentiles and other Non-Jews


Speculating... well, yes. I know that the Jews of the time referred to goyim as dogs... so I 'speculate' that Jesus used the same terminology.

The other explanation would be that he honestly thought someone WAS a dog. The 'use of language' speculation seems safer.


if you're asking, is there any truth to the crucifixtion/resurrection? well, you have people studying those sites as well as the artifacts found.


Which sites? Which artifacts?

The only artifacts I can think of that MIGHT be relevent would be the James Ossuary (or whatever we are calling it)... which is a fake, and the Shroud of Turin, which is far from proved as being even possibly connected to the real crucifixion time or place.


he also was walking away from them, so are you also indicating that he was fleeing the Multitude? and how dare all those Public Speakers lift themselves away from their audiences by assending stages and other forms of Platforms, Here I thought it was so that they can be seen and heard... but obviously that is also wrong because the only reason someone climbs something is to get away from the others. :p


Large groups of people. Big open air venue.

Have you ever done any public speaking?

The text doesn't say anything about doinf anything to be seen or heard. Indeed - Matthew makes no indication at all that Jesus was interested in the multitudes below... indeed, he seems to imply Jesus was fleeing the crowd...


and really isn't an important detail when considering what Jesus was saying. would it make a difference if he was on a plain, in a synogogue or on a boat talking to those on shore?

It might be important. If Jesus was LITERALLY atop a mountain - he definitely was NOT speaking to the crowd...

when dealing with the Gentiles? of course they were.


Why? Because you think that sounds appropriate?

and most likely you would be right. however, most Miracles are personal in nature. which is why most cannot be proven or disproven.


Which doesn't make the scripture any more true...

that's up to the reader. I say different, (which also may mean More Complete.)


'Different' is taken as read. But WHY different? Most logically - since there is no direct conflict, the difference must be 'extra', no?

that you are insisting that Matthew is more complete and focusing only on one book where other books don't indicate that hatred. even Jesus's reply to the Canaanite woman is softer and less insulting in Mark and Luke than in Matthew? does that make Matthew's accounting Correct? or just Different?


Where did the word 'hatred' come from?

I certainly didn't say Jesus 'hated' the Gentiles. He just seems to have considered them no more valuable than tools, in teaching the Jews.

well, I didn't burn my bible. but I have recieved Guidance outside of the Bible.


But still based in the literal truth of the bible?

and you are judging Jesus and is teachings by one book of the whole bible. a part of the whole complete text.

Not at all... I judge by the whole text... it just seems that Matthew gives us insight on this matter.

he also was walking away from them, so are you also indicating that he was fleeing the Multitude? and how dare all those Public Speakers lift themselves away from their audiences by assending stages and other forms of Platforms, Here I thought it was so that they can be seen and heard... but obviously that is also wrong because the only reason someone climbs something is to get away from the others. :p
Your mockery is misplaced. Jesus was not seen or heard from the bottom of the mount --it says so in the Bible --so his purpose in elevating himself could not logically have been what you suggest as an alternative to Grave's more sensible suggestion.

Matthew 5: 1When Jesus saw his ministry drawing huge crowds, he climbed a hillside. Those who were apprenticed to him, the committed, climbed with him. Arriving at a quiet place, he sat down and taught his climbing companions. This is what he said:
3"You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule..."

Your mockery is misplaced. Jesus was not seen or heard from the bottom of the mount --it says so in the Bible --so his purpose in elevating himself could not logically have been what you suggest as an alternative to Grave's more sensible suggestion.

Matthew 5: 1When Jesus saw his ministry drawing huge crowds, he climbed a hillside. Those who were apprenticed to him, the committed, climbed with him. Arriving at a quiet place, he sat down and taught his climbing companions. This is what he said:
3"You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule..."

And, this is one of the conflicts I see...

Matthew seems to be specifically stating Jesus left the crowd, to talk only to the disciples, while Luke says that Jesus LEFT the mountain, to come down among the people.

Two very different situations.

Of course - Matthew gives a MUCH more detailed version of the Sermon, so it is tempting to favour Matthew.

And, this is one of the conflicts I see...

Matthew seems to be specifically stating Jesus left the crowd, to talk only to the disciples, while Luke says that Jesus LEFT the mountain, to come down among the people.

Two very different situations.

Of course - Matthew gives a MUCH more detailed version of the Sermon, so it is tempting to favour Matthew.
now, would leaving the mountain always be different from leaving the crowd? I'm not so sure that one is a conflict, so much as one (probably luke in this case) using poor language, and one being much more explicit.

Well, no, not really. Universalism implies that all will be saved and achieve salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ. However, what I was saying earlier was that so long as that path is adhered to with utter devotion, then each person may reach God through a different path.

Even though there is only one way into heaven and that is through Christ our Lord.

Even though there is only one way into heaven and that is through Christ our Lord.
Well... technically, if god is everywhere then one needn't get into heaven to "find him". ;)

Yes, I know, abusing the metaphor.

actually, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erketrum
ESOM, the Bible is a religious text. Of course you won't find the answer to "How do I find my lost carkeys?" in it.
actually, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 7:7
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

:D
JuNii, that was brilliant! *falls over laughing*
I salute thee, lady. :D

Maybe it's just me, but I find it interesting that when people talk about human rights and privilages, they want the Government, parents and other people to treat them like intelligent adults.
"Old enough to make their own decisions,"
"Old enough not to be hand fed things."
"Old enough to make their own mistakes"
"Old enough to figure things out for themselves"
"Old enough to not have someone guide them every step of the way."
basically not to be treated like a child.

but when it comes to God, they argue that they want God to treat them like babies.
"God should provide everything"
"God should stop all the evil in the world."
"God should prove himself (I Double Dog dare you)"
"God should force himself upon everyone."
"God should speak to us as if we were children"

Am I the only one noticing this?
No, and this is an integral part of my own beliefs (as voiced in another post).
God doesn't invlove Herself with humans, for good or ill, because we have to take learn from and take care of our own mistakes if we're to grow up.
And I want to grow up. I don't want to rely on Daddy all my life, I want to be an adult in my own right.

I do agree that, man or myth, Jesus is an exemplar... the icon of a paradigm. It just so happens... I don't think it matters if he be myth or man... it is the message that matters. You can't stop the signal.
Very well said. Jesus had a lot of good ideas, regardless of who/what he was, or even if he was.
And Graven, you don't have to believe in God to have faith. Don't search for God as such, search to find out who and what you are, and what works for you.
A mite self-contradicting I know, but it might also work.

Jocabia, thanks for some very nice posts. You have sought and found, like I believe anyone wanting to grow spiritually should do.

Well, he needs to get on here and post a sex thread of some kind. Or politics. Or, titillatingly, both simultaneously. *salivates*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/685.gif
What, like:
"Not tonight honey. You're not ideologically sound tonight."

or

"Not tonight love. Your poll ratings aren't high enough."

or

"Did I mention I want to tear your clothes of with my teeth and have mad, passionate sex with you when you argue about federal argicultural rights like that?"

:p

Why couldnt, or rather, why wouldnt any kind of God at least impart knowledge of his existance, even if he imparts little of any other kind.
Obviously, any benevolent being would allow mankind to grow and become what it will, like any parent would, but then, any good parent makes sure to make a personal appearance once in a while.
In my beliefs, I think it's because God can't.
Either God is outside Her creation, or He is the creation. In both cases, She can't enter because it would tear reality apart.

A bit like how a human can't sail the ship they built inside a bottle.

In a way I think God is present, just not affecting us or able to communicate with us.

If that doesn't make sense, don't worry. Sometimes I give myself a headache. ;)

So.. he's a placebo?
That's a fairly accurate description of the experience, if not what causes it.
Though it is "The Ultimate Placebo" of course. ;)
And no, that's not a joke.

And you shouldn't be talked to like an adult? You want us to talk to you like a child?
No, Maypole means; make allowances for him being ignorant in some matters because of his age.

His stance on things Christian makes more sense now too. Young people are often convinced they are right.
I suffered the same ailment during a period of my own teens, so I recognize it. ;)

Gah! Sorry for making so many posts in a row, and for their scatterbrained nature.
None of them are current either. Itried to catch up from where I left off, and managed to get from p. 380 to p. 402, but now I give up.
Another 73 pages are a bit much for me to go through...

Keep up the debate though, it's interesting, even if I'd like to see more about other religions than christianity...

I think the question should be...

Does God have faith in me? :)

I am suprised that this thread is still on topic after 7000 posts

Very well said. Jesus had a lot of good ideas, regardless of who/what he was, or even if he was.
And Graven, you don't have to believe in God to have faith. Don't search for God as such, search to find out who and what you are, and what works for you.
A mite self-contradicting I know, but it might also work.

Jocabia, thanks for some very nice posts. You have sought and found, like I believe anyone wanting to grow spiritually should do.

Thank you. I am humbled.

only through his actions.

and neither do they support it.


Chonologically, according to events in all three books, they are the same event, with the same purpose. Only the instructions in Mathew are different.

which requires a certain leap-of-faith.

Except we seem to differ on methods of Verification. I use prayer, you seem to use the literal translation of the text written.

I am not the one Judging Jesus and his actions solely on one Book (Matthew) you and Jocabia are.

I am not judging Jesus at all. I never said anything about the merit of what he said. I will not however discount or dismiss his words. You wish to. I know why. So what is your argument now? You don't like Matthew has to say, so you're just gonna drop one entire apostle?

I take it as a whole, I don't discount any one version being more truthful than others. but what of you, do you only focus on one verse as truth, ignoring other accounts?

Do you only accept "The Truth" only those accounts that fit your view? Why do you attempt to dodge the questions put to you (since you choose to answer for Jocabia) and Jocabia ?

I find no conflict. That is because I don't WANT it to say something it does not say. I don't take one apostle over the others. They don't conflict. AT ALL. You add context that is not there and claim conflict. There is NO evidence that Jesus came for other than Jews and much that he came ONLY to the Jews. Is the only way you can make the argument now to simply claim Matthew is wrong? Odd.

You cannot take it as whole and deny that it EXPLICITLY says that Jesus came ONLY for the Jews. You create a conflict and then claim that anyone that doesn't make up the same conflict is putting Matthew above other accounts. I take them all in context and they agree. Jesus came ONLY for the Jews.

Why?

And yes there is a God. A God who loved all of us that he gave His only begotten Son to die for us for who so ever believeth in Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Il, was your friend a Christian?


agreed


and read Romans... Jesus didnt come only for the Jews. He came for Jews and Gentiles alike. :)

baaaaaa baaaaaa

agreed


and read Romans... Jesus didnt come only for the Jews. He came for Jews and Gentiles alike. :)

He did? Let's ask him.

Matthew 15:23Jesus 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."

Let's see what he said to his disciples in terms of their work?

Matthew 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

Let's not get into the parts that were strongly debated as even being part of the Gospels, parts amended to the ends of them much later.

Name any time in the life of Jesus where he suggested that his message was for Gentiles. Not something that someone else said after he died, but quotes of Jeuss from his life. Any quote.

Am I to take the word of Paul over Jesus?

He did? Let's ask him.

Matthew 15:23Jesus 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."

Let's see what he said to his disciples in terms of their work?

Matthew 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

Let's not get into the parts that were strongly debated as even being part of the Gospels, parts amended to the ends of them much later.

Name any time in the life of Jesus where he suggested that his message was for Gentiles. Not something that someone else said after he died, but quotes of Jeuss from his life. Any quote.

Am I to take the word of Paul over Jesus?and what of the Samaritans he preached to? they were not Jews and this was in a Samaritan town.

I find no conflict. That is because I don't WANT it to say something it does not say. I don't take one apostle over the others. They don't conflict. AT ALL. You add context that is not there and claim conflict. There is NO evidence that Jesus came for other than Jews and much that he came ONLY to the Jews. Is the only way you can make the argument now to simply claim Matthew is wrong? Odd.
You know, the Gospels weren't written by the apostles. Most of the rest of the New Testament was, however. I made a post much earlier that repeatedly quoted the Gospels talking about "All nations" and how Jesus came to save everyone.
Here are some of them:
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
There you go Jocabia. Unless, of course, you think that "preached in the WHOLE WORLD as a testimony to ALL NATIONS" means just the Jews.

And that last passage, from Luke, explains why Jesus told the disciples to go only among the Jews. They were the starting place for his message, because they were the ones who already knew the prophecies of the Messiah.

*shakes head*

I've been saying All nations as well but Jocabia is hung up.

I find no conflict. That is because I don't WANT it to say something it does not say. I don't take one apostle over the others. They don't conflict. AT ALL. You add context that is not there and claim conflict. There is NO evidence that Jesus came for other than Jews and much that he came ONLY to the Jews. Is the only way you can make the argument now to simply claim Matthew is wrong? Odd.

You cannot take it as whole and deny that it EXPLICITLY says that Jesus came ONLY for the Jews. You create a conflict and then claim that anyone that doesn't make up the same conflict is putting Matthew above other accounts. I take them all in context and they agree. Jesus came ONLY for the Jews.and other accounts does not mention this sole purpose, tho all you do mention is accounts in matthew. is there other accounts of Jesus saying that he is here only for Isreal in the other books? funny that they would mention same wordings but not those particular words...

and remember, these were written accounts of the disciples. Not penned by Jesus himself. so arguing the validity of Matthew over Mark over Luke over John etc... is arguing one disciple over the others... One account over the others.

and as I said, if that's all that you see, then the only thing to disuade you is Jesus comming down to personally tell you otherwise.

however, since I did say that I am in agreement that Jesus was sent to save Isreal, I also said that his teachings were open to all who would hear. I believe we did get side tracked somewhere as the argument then shifted to All nations. then I was asked when did Jesus preach to anyone other than the Jews.

how we got back this argument is beyond me...

oh, and I did find reference where Jesus talked to non-Jews John 4.

Besides, why would a loving God decide that the vast majority of the world is going to rot in hell forever simply because they had no Hebrew blood?

I am not judging Jesus at all. I never said anything about the merit of what he said. I will not however discount or dismiss his words. You wish to. I know why. So what is your argument now? You don't like Matthew has to say, so you're just gonna drop one entire apostle?
however, you discount what the others reports he said, and apparently only one heard the restrictions placed upon where to go. maybe only one Disciple was told not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans.

maybe only one Disciple only heard him say "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal."

you are placing what one heard over what the others bore witness to.

I did not drop Matthew, but I did not only focus on Matthew.

I have had 2 hamsters (one of which got "put down" today), and a cat. None of those turned out right. My cat was evil and attacked my sister and my hamters died of foreign objects in their abdomens. If god is real, why won't he let me hav a successful pet??? :confused:

I think the question should be...

Does God have faith in me? :)
Yes he does. :)

however, you discount what the others reports he said, and apparently only one heard the restrictions placed upon where to go. maybe only one Disciple was told not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans.

maybe only one Disciple only heard him say "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal."

you are placing what one heard over what the others bore witness to.

I did not drop Matthew, but I did not only focus on Matthew.
I, however, did get two quotes from the Gospel of Matthew explicitly stating that the message was to be preached to everyone.

Again, the Gospels were not written by the apostles themselves.

JuNii, that was brilliant! *falls over laughing*
I salute thee, lady. :D
ahem... I sir, am no lady.

I am what Aslan would call, a son of Adam. :D

I, however, did get two quotes from the Gospel of Matthew explicitly stating that the message was to be preached to everyone.

Again, the Gospels were not written by the apostles themselves.
yep. which is why to focus on the Minute detail, "where did he speak," "to which people did he speak to" is irrelivant to the messages he spread.

and If I be a Gentile or Samaritan who was unworthy to know his words, then let my faith speak for me.

God knows what is in my heart.

yep. which is why to focus on the Minute detail, "where did he speak," "to which people did he speak to" is irrelivant to the messages he spread.

and If I be a Gentile or Samaritan who was unworthy to know his words, then let my faith speak for me.

God knows what is in my heart.
Amen to that.

Jocabia, you better not have run off. It makes you look bad when you suddenly disappear once your point is countered.

yep. which is why to focus on the Minute detail, "where did he speak," "to which people did he speak to" is irrelivant to the messages he spread.

and If I be a Gentile or Samaritan who was unworthy to know his words, then let my faith speak for me.

God knows what is in my heart.

Amen JuNii. Well said as well.

Jocabia, you better not have run off. It makes you look bad when you suddenly disappear once your point is countered.

He'll be back with some quote from Matthew trying to debunk all that we have said.

yep. which is why to focus on the Minute detail, "where did he speak," "to which people did he speak to" is irrelivant to the messages he spread.

and If I be a Gentile or Samaritan who was unworthy to know his words, then let my faith speak for me.

God knows what is in my heart.

I believe I said exactly the same thing about faith. However, it is not a minute detail to contradict the words of Jesus. Regardless of who Jesus was speaking to when he said it, he explicitly said he was sent only to the Jews.

I believe I said exactly the same thing about faith. However, it is not a minute detail to contradict the words of Jesus. Regardless of who Jesus was speaking to when he said it, he explicitly said he was sent only to the Jews.

And then says to his disciples to spread the word to all nations. That fact you cannot eliminate.

Night all. I'm off to bed.

You know, the Gospels weren't written by the apostles. Most of the rest of the New Testament was, however. I made a post much earlier that repeatedly quoted the Gospels talking about "All nations" and how Jesus came to save everyone.
Here are some of them:



There you go Jocabia. Unless, of course, you think that "preached in the WHOLE WORLD as a testimony to ALL NATIONS" means just the Jews.

And that last passage, from Luke, explains why Jesus told the disciples to go only among the Jews. They were the starting place for his message, because they were the ones who already knew the prophecies of the Messiah.

Yes, it meant just Jews. All nations is not all people. Where does that say everyone. The lost sheep of Isreal are the lost sheep of Isreal regardless of where they reside. Unless you claim that when they were in Egypt they were no longer the lost sheep of Isreal. The Jews were to be save no matter where they be found. Now, it COULD have meant all people, but given that he NEVER told them to preach to other than the Jews, that takes a gigantic leap of logic.

And "now that my point is countered". You quoted the same things that has been quoted over 1000 posts ago. And no one, no one has proven that it MUST mean all people and in absense of that, I see no reason to discard the explicit instructions of Jesus because of what you WANT it to say.

He said he was SENT only to the Jews. He was only sent once so far. So either he was sent for the Jews or not. He didn't only tell them to preach to the Jews. He said that who he, Jesus, was sent to. The Jews and ONLY the Jews. To say he was sent to others is to say Jesus was either wrong or lying. Are you arguing that?

And then says to his disciples to spread the word to all nations. That fact you cannot eliminate.

Night all. I'm off to bed.

But not all people. Again, you cut and run. You make a comment that indicates that you don't believe Matthew. Did Jesus not say what Matthew quoted? Was Jesus lying? Was Jesus wrong? Why are you so anxious to amend his words? He said who he was sent to. When he said all nations, you assume he suddenly contradicted himself, making him a liar or wrong, something you refuse to address.

He'll be back with some quote from Matthew trying to debunk all that we have said.

So was Matthew wrong? Did Jesus not say that? Was Jesus wrong when he said? Was he lying?

He'll be back with some quote from Matthew trying to debunk all that we have said.

So was Matthew wrong? Did Jesus not say that? Was Jesus wrong when he said? Was he lying?

Amen to that.

Jocabia, you better not have run off. It makes you look bad when you suddenly disappear once your point is countered.
now that's not fair, I myself got knocked off when Jolt... well jolted me off. :D

I believe I said exactly the same thing about faith. However, it is not a minute detail to contradict the words of Jesus. Regardless of who Jesus was speaking to when he said it, he explicitly said he was sent only to the Jews.
He said that in one place. And he said the opposite many, many times. For reference, see my post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479090&page=476) (around the middle of the page).

So was Matthew wrong? Did Jesus not say that? Was Jesus wrong when he said? Was he lying?
you did ask for proof of Jesus talking and teaching to others outside the Jews.

I provided that proof.

however, you discount what the others reports he said, and apparently only one heard the restrictions placed upon where to go. maybe only one Disciple was told not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans.

maybe only one Disciple only heard him say "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal."

you are placing what one heard over what the others bore witness to.

I did not drop Matthew, but I did not only focus on Matthew.

They bore witness to something you made up context for. The context is not there unless you insert it. What one heard was what JESUS SAID. I don't discount what Jesus said to one or many. Why do you?

But not all people. Again, you cut and run. You make a comment that indicates that you don't believe Matthew. Did Jesus not say what Matthew quoted? Was Jesus lying? Was Jesus wrong? Why are you so anxious to amend his words? He said who he was sent to. When he said all nations, you assume he suddenly contradicted himself, making him a liar or wrong, something you refuse to address.

Because I said I am going off to bed I am cut and running? Sorry but it is 1130 here and I have a busy day ahead tomorrow. I agree with JuNii. I take all of the bible. Not just one book of it.

Now on to your other dumb and ridiculous charges.

1) I never indicated that I do not believe Matthew
2) I believe he did say what he said.
3) No
4) I am not. If you bothered to read all of Matthew, you would see that he wanted his disciples to spread the word to all people. That is why he said all nations.
5) I am not making Jesus out to be a liar here. You are doing that all on your own.

Now I am really off to bed. No one better accuse me of cut and running again.

you did ask for proof of Jesus talking and teaching to others outside the Jews.

I provided that proof.

No, you didn't. He was talking to the disciples. There is no evidence he was intending to teach the Gentiles. Did he ever say, "now, Gentiles, gather near." or "let's go teach to the Gentiles." Nope. But he did say let's not. He did say when a Gentile asked for help. sorry, I'm not here for you. All words of Jesus support his purpose being for Jews alone. You have shown NO evidence to the contrary. Just evidence that COULD be taken that way if one ignores what he said.

I believe I said exactly the same thing about faith. However, it is not a minute detail to contradict the words of Jesus. Regardless of who Jesus was speaking to when he said it, he explicitly said he was sent only to the Jews.
so you have one book saying he said it, yet others don't you have other books giving reference to Jesus talking to Samaritans and Gentiles. and yet you are the one asking if these are lies?

He told whom not to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans? I cannot believe he told all, so perhaps only one heard it. It's possible that only one heard him say that he was for the lost sheep of Isreal, because the others were letting the Canaanite woman into the house they were resting at. perhaps the one telling the scribe of the Book Of Matthew is letting his personal feelings show. all that is important is that it doesn't matter who he said his message is for, it's available for all now. it was made available for all Nations to learn what they want to of the teaching of Jesus. if you wish to hang on to those two scriptures and cause them to determine your willingness to read the rest of his works as well as the works of God through his Disciples, then there is nothing we can say or do to change your mind.

Because I said I am going off to bed I am cut and running? Sorry but it is 1130 here and I have a busy day ahead tomorrow. I agree with JuNii. I take all of the bible. Not just one book of it.

Now on to your other dumb and ridiculous charges.

1) I never indicated that I do not believe Matthew
2) I believe he did say what he said.
3) No
4) I am not. If you bothered to read all of Matthew, you would see that he wanted his disciples to spread the word to all people. That is why he said all nations.
5) I am not making Jesus out to be a liar here. You are doing that all on your own.

Now I am really off to bed. No one better accuse me of cut and running again.

He wanted them to spread the word to all people, yet he expressly said otherwise? How can you argue that he contradicted himself but was not wrong or lying? I believe he didn't contradict himself. Because all nations =/= all people. I would not be so quick to amend the words of the Savior.

*shakes head*

I've been saying All nations as well but Jocabia is hung up.

Yes, I'm hung up on not amending the words of Jesus with made up context. Yep. Completely hung up on that. Were that you would be so hung up.

All nations will never be the words "all people". Was Jesus such a bad communicator in your mind that he wouldn't know the difference between saying all nations and all people.

No, you didn't. He was talking to the disciples. There is no evidence he was intending to teach the Gentiles. Did he ever say, "now, Gentiles, gather near." or "let's go teach to the Gentiles." Nope. But he did say let's not. He did say when a Gentile asked for help. sorry, I'm not here for you. All words of Jesus support his purpose being for Jews alone. You have shown NO evidence to the contrary. Just evidence that COULD be taken that way if one ignores what he said.
again I repeat, John 4. He speaks to a Samaritan woman and eventually spends a couple of days there talking to the Samaritan townspeople.

so you have one book saying he said it, yet others don't you have other books giving reference to Jesus talking to Samaritans and Gentiles. and yet you are the one asking if these are lies?

Quotes, please? You reference vague quotes. There is no convincing evidence that he ever taught with consideration for Gentiles or Samaritans.

He told whom not to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans? I cannot believe he told all, so perhaps only one heard it. It's possible that only one heard him say that he was for the lost sheep of Isreal, because the others were letting the Canaanite woman into the house they were resting at. perhaps the one telling the scribe of the Book Of Matthew is letting his personal feelings show. all that is important is that it doesn't matter who he said his message is for, it's available for all now. it was made available for all Nations to learn what they want to of the teaching of Jesus. if you wish to hang on to those two scriptures and cause them to determine your willingness to read the rest of his works as well as the works of God through his Disciples, then there is nothing we can say or do to change your mind.

So you're saying the book of Matthew is biased? So what makes you think any of it is reliable?

He wanted them to spread the word to all people, yet he expressly said otherwise? How can you argue that he contradicted himself but was not wrong or lying? I believe he didn't contradict himself. Because all nations =/= all people. I would not be so quick to amend the words of the Savior.

This is what happens when you have to many threads! grrr! This is most definitely my last post.

Jocabia. I really wish you stop putting words into my posts that are not there. It is not my fault that you are ignoring the proof that was offered up to you. It is not my fault that you are hung up on one verse that was near the beginning. It is not my fault that you are not comprehending what me and others are trying to get through to you.

You are the only one contradicting Jesus and I really wish you stop it.

NOW GOOD NIGHT!

This is what happens when you have to many threads! grrr! This is most definitely my last post.

Jocabia. I really wish you stop putting words into my posts that are not there. It is not my fault that you are ignoring the proof that was offered up to you. It is not my fault that you are hung up on one verse that was near the beginning. It is not my fault that you are not comprehending what me and others are trying to get through to you.

You are the only one contradicting Jesus and I really wish you stop it.

NOW GOOD NIGHT!

I am. I am quoting his words and standing by them. Prove that all nations means all people. I'm waiting. Can't? Now can you prove that ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal means ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal. I can. You know how? Becuase it's EXACTLY what He said.

He wanted them to spread the word to all people, yet he expressly said otherwise? How can you argue that he contradicted himself but was not wrong or lying? I believe he didn't contradict himself. Because all nations =/= all people. I would not be so quick to amend the words of the Savior.
be warned, you are also amending words.

we have shown other books of the bible and verses which supports our claims, yet you have only produced two verses from one book, and that those two verses are the end all, be all truth of Jesus.

Is the Book of Matthew lying. No one can say. was Jesus Lying? no one can say. what the Scribe writting this down Lying? who knows. was the source the Scribe of the Book Of Matthew wrong? dunno.

if you want your view of Christianity influenced by those two verses, then that is your choice.

Well, I have one, but my god doesn't have time to concern itself with penny-ante shit like vouchsafing highschool basketball victories.

Yes, I'm hung up on not amending the words of Jesus with made up context. Yep. Completely hung up on that. Were that you would be so hung up.

All nations will never be the words "all people". Was Jesus such a bad communicator in your mind that he wouldn't know the difference between saying all nations and all people.

We are not amending the words of Jesus at all. If you bothered to read what we have typed, you would be able to see that.

As it is written, "he who has ears to hear let him hear." Apparently your ears are closed otherwise you would be able to comprehend precisely what we are saying.

As to you second quote "All Nations will never be the words 'all people', how do you know that? Because of one verse that has been shown to be in only one book and not in the other 3? He told his disciples to spread the word to all nations in all 4 books. Just who is amending the words of Jesus? Not I nor JuNii nor Anglachel and Anguirel.

Caio.

He said that in one place. And he said the opposite many, many times. For reference, see my post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479090&page=476) (around the middle of the page).

You didn't quote him saying the opposite. He said all nations. Not all people. And if you claim Jesus said the opposite of what he originally stated which time was he wrong?

I am. I am quoting his words and standing by them. Prove that all nations means all people. I'm waiting. Can't? Now can you prove that ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal means ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal. I can. You know how? Becuase it's EXACTLY what He said.
How do you know it was EXACTLY what He said? you have a Recording of Jesus speaking at those times? the one who was giving this to the Scribe of Matthew had photographic memory that he could recount so perfectly every word?

you still claim this where there is evidence of Jesus spreading his word to all, even non-Jews, in the bible?

you are putting one book above all others, doing the same thing you accused others of doing.

Now who is amending what about Whom?

We are not amending the words of Jesus at all. If you bothered to read what we have typed, you would be able to see that.

As it is written, "he who has ears to hear let him hear." Apparently your ears are closed otherwise you would be able to comprehend precisely what we are saying.

As to you second quote "All Nations will never be the words 'all people', how do you know that? Because of one verse that has been shown to be in only one book and not in the other 3? He told his disciples to spread the word to all nations in all 4 books. Just who is amending the words of Jesus? Not I nor JuNii nor Anglachel and Anguirel.

Caio.

So was Jesus wrong when he said he was sent to ONLY the Jews? Did he not say it? It's so funny. The only people claiming a contradiction is you guys. His words and actions are completely consistent. His ministry was focused on Jews. He sent his disciples to Jews. He said he was sent only to the Jews. And then he told them to go to the Jews of all nations. Consistent. The only way to make any of it inconsistent is to claim that all nations MUST be all people. And I'm not claiming that.

I believe there's a god or divine force, but not the Christian God and not necessarily a humanlike consciousness - possibly more like an energy. As to why horrible things happen? It's not his/her/its problem that humans are stupid/brutal/frail/what-have-you. Some of what happens to us is due to the sort of energy we attract, some is due to chance. In any case I don't believe there's a person in the sky manipulating events and trying to make sure justice is carried out. Even if I believed in a humanlike deity, I'd expect them to have better things to be doing.

Remember, Jocabia, that the Gospels were written well after Jesus' death and so were not perfectly accurate. Also, they have been translated, which confuses much of the meaning. A word might be translated as "nations" or "peoples", but was closer to "nations". You can't take every word literally (especially not in the English versions) because a single word can be misinterpreted or can be changed.

Personally, I will take a half dozen instances of Jesus talking about preaching to all nations over one instance where he says that he was sent only for the Jews.

Jocabia: What do you make of this: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
(Matthew 24:14)

That very clearly means everybody. If he was only talking about Jews, he would have said something like "the people of Israel in all nations" or something like that. But incidentally, even the word nation does not refer exclusively to one nationality. There were plenty of people of other races than Hebrew who were nevertheless residents of the area.

again I repeat, John 4. He speaks to a Samaritan woman and eventually spends a couple of days there talking to the Samaritan townspeople.

Really? John 4. It seems like he makes it pretty clear to her that he doesn't think much of the Samaritans. He says again that faith will save. Where does he say he was sent to the Gentiles? It seems like he only set out to get some water. And he was too kind to abandon them. A little bit less than compelling particularly when trying to contradict the expressed words of the Christ.

So was Jesus wrong when he said he was sent to ONLY the Jews? Did he not say it? It's so funny. The only people claiming a contradiction is you guys. His words and actions are completely consistent. His ministry was focused on Jews. He sent his disciples to Jews. He said he was sent only to the Jews. And then he told them to go to the Jews of all nations. Consistent. The only way to make any of it inconsistent is to claim that all nations MUST be all people. And I'm not claiming that.

here is my question

why is nit picking pointless details like this importiant to the christan faith?
wouldnt you agree it would be more efective to say, " hey we dont have all the answers but what maters is that we have the faith to bileve what we have been given"?

here is my question

why is nit picking pointless details like this importiant to the christan faith?
wouldnt you agree it would be more efective to say, " hey we dont have all the answers but what maters is that we have the faith to bileve what we have been given"?

Because people made a false claim earlier and it is important that people not misrepresent the Savior. Faith can save all, but Jesus was NOT sent to all. They are not the same thing.

He said "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
(Matthew 24:14)

Remember, Jocabia, that the Gospels were written well after Jesus' death and so were not perfectly accurate. Also, they have been translated, which confuses much of the meaning.

Personally, I will take a half dozen instances of Jesus talking about preaching to all nations over one instance where he says that he was sent only for the Jews.

Matthew 24 is largely regarded to be written by a different author, for one thing. The translation was directly read by one of the people arguing here. It says exactly what we are arguing. There is no evidence I've seen that states otherwise, but feel free to present it.

Meanwhile, Jesus said that his words would be preserved. Was he wrong?

And if you start saying it's not accurate where does that argument end?

I gave you a description that makes the entire thing completely consistent. You read something into it to make it inconsistent and then argue that it's flawed. Hmmm... one wonders which of us is trying to amend the Word.

How do you know it was EXACTLY what He said? you have a Recording of Jesus speaking at those times? the one who was giving this to the Scribe of Matthew had photographic memory that he could recount so perfectly every word?

you still claim this where there is evidence of Jesus spreading his word to all, even non-Jews, in the bible?

you are putting one book above all others, doing the same thing you accused others of doing.

Now who is amending what about Whom?

Jesus said his words would be preserved. He gave them the ability to preach his word accurately. Are you claiming that the Gospels are flawed?

Because people made a false claim earlier and it is important that people not misrepresent the Savior. Faith can save all, but Jesus was NOT sent to all. They are not the same thing.
here is the thing that matters

Jesus sent his disiples to the WHOLE world that means jew and gentile(goy) alike. there for he sent him self...he may not have go in person by he intended for his word to reach every one on earth

The greatest sin of man is the sin of the church. A building where millions of people attend every Sunday to look up to the sky and speak strange words, and sing singsongy songs. I think there is a God, the fact that there might not be scares the hell out of me. I think all men were created equal, but make choices to place them into modes society classifies. IE; evil, good, etc. I know there to be a God, but I also know the last place you find him will be in a Church. I like Martin Luther see the church as becoming a twisted and corrupted invention of man, the problem is, man is so wrapped up in it all they'll never break out of it. :( God lets life run it's full course. He grants life, then lets it go on a random path guided by your actions. Cancer is just part of a far more complex balancing act, not explained by good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to the Evil. (karma) all I can say is: worship what you want, but live life and be happy :)

So was Jesus wrong when he said he was sent to ONLY the Jews? Did he not say it? It's so funny. The only people claiming a contradiction is you guys. His words and actions are completely consistent. His ministry was focused on Jews. He sent his disciples to Jews. He said he was sent only to the Jews. And then he told them to go to the Jews of all nations. Consistent. The only way to make any of it inconsistent is to claim that all nations MUST be all people. And I'm not claiming that.
sorry, you just lost it. you are now amending what he said.

no where does he say to go to any specific people when he mentioned ALL NATIONS.

mat24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

proof that you are amending words to Jesus. something you say you were not doing.

no support that your two verses are valid since they only appear in Matthew, while other Books about Jesus don't make such claims.

no refutation about Jesus spending time, teaching Non Jews...

you know, I'm starting to lean towards the fact that maybe he really didn't say those words. his attitude to non-jews (outside of Matthew) speaks differently than those two verses. Wonder what the others will think of this?

The Gospels were written by humans, copied by humans, and translated by humans. The present form of the Gospels is a flawed rendition of a perfect message.

I have never said that Jesus was wrong, nor have I claimed that he contradicted himself. I have merely said that the versions of the Gospels which we have contradict each other and themselves.

Yes, we use scripture as our guide in faith, but that does not mean we should abandon our common sense.
In all his half-dozen references to "all nations" (I'm using the New International Version), Jesus never said "just the Jews" of all nations.

Jesus said his words would be preserved. He gave them the ability to preach his word accurately. Are you claiming that the Gospels are flawed?and thus another attempt to shift the point to a different source.

are you admitting that you have amended Jesus's words to suit your own definition?

and thus another attempt to shift the point to a different source.

are you admitting that you have amended Jesus's words to suit your own definition?

Where did I amend it? I am going by his exact words. He NEVER said ALL people and he explicitly said the opposite. It's not hard to reach my conclusion.

I've proven it. Two of you are arguing that the original Gospels are flawed. Will Corny argue it too so we can make it all of you?

Which sounds like the perfect form of religion... something that is personal interaction between whatever god or gods happen to be involved in the process.
Nothing is perfect. Never forget that.

<snip> The Natural History of the Grufnig <snip>
Ha. Grufnigs. :D This sounds pretty much what I went through during my three-decade shopping trip. Christians of all varieties, neo-pagans, new agers, occultists, etc, etc, would all come and tell me their long, convoluted stories, and I just had issues with every one of them. The constructs were just too complex, too artificial for me. But I was still stuck with those instinctive ways of thinking that I had to find a way to express, so I had to keep looking. I'd say I've spent most of my life -- seriously, all but the last 15 years or so -- thinking about religion and spirituality but not actually having or practicing any.

Matthew 24 is largely regarded to be written by a different author, for one thing. The translation was directly read by one of the people arguing here. It says exactly what we are arguing. There is no evidence I've seen that states otherwise, but feel free to present it.

Meanwhile, Jesus said that his words would be preserved. Was he wrong?

And if you start saying it's not accurate where does that argument end?

I gave you a description that makes the entire thing completely consistent. You read something into it to make it inconsistent and then argue that it's flawed. Hmmm... one wonders which of us is trying to amend the Word.you are focusing on a bit of the whole saying "ye bear witness to the entire truth."

Was his words Preserved? yes.

was his words preserved accurately? who knows.

is there a way to discern truth from fiction? yes.

The Gospels were written by humans, copied by humans, and translated by humans. The present form of the Gospels is a flawed rendition of a perfect message.

I have never said that Jesus was wrong, nor have I claimed that he contradicted himself. I have merely said that the versions of the Gospels which we have contradict each other and themselves.

Yes, we use scripture as our guide in faith, but that does not mean we should abandon our common sense.

Yes, but we have evidence of what the original Gospels said. And nothing about them have I found as contradiction. Only y'all have. I've proven. I've said all along you all believe the original gospels are flawed. Now, I've proven it. My work is done. Let's not claim they are the work of God when y'all are claiming they are just writings of man.

Where did I amend it? I am going by his exact words. He NEVER said ALL people and he explicitly said the opposite. It's not hard to reach my conclusion.

I've proven it. Two of you are arguing that the original Gospels are flawed. Will Corny argue it too so we can make it all of you?
you keep saying that, yet his works, deeds and, yes, Teachings, lay false to your definition of All Nations.

and it's very easy to reach your conclusion. first remove all books from the Bible except for Matthew. then prune liberally with chainsaw.

everyone arguing against you has said, that you don't just focus on one Book. but like a broken record, that's all you are doing.

you challenged me and even assured me that you will keep an open mind. yet, when I provided proof of Jesus staying two days teaching non jews, you close your mind.

here is the thing that matters

Jesus sent his disiples to the WHOLE world that means jew and gentile(goy) alike. there for he sent him self...he may not have go in person by he intended for his word to reach every one on earth

Actually, Jesus didn't. It was a big point of contention between peter and paul, and in one of the books (COll, maybe?) Peter and Paul have it out. ONe wanted to bring the word to the Gentiles, the other didn't. BUt, on a different point, let me say this:

the bible was translated three or four time before it ever got to let, before it was written down, even. How can this thing accurately represent the word of a God?

What Jesus said was the work of God. What got written down was written down by humans.

sorry, you just lost it. you are now amending what he said.

No, I'm showing the context. It could have meant all people but that would be a contradiction. It could have meant the Jews from all nations. That would not be a contradiction. When no contradiction exists I do not create one.

no where does he say to go to any specific people when he mentioned ALL NATIONS.

Nor does it say NOT to. However, it does say to go to a specific people in other parts of the Gospels. You wish for that one statement to stand alone and to ignore the context where he says several times that He is here for the Jews.

mat24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

proof that you are amending words to Jesus. something you say you were not doing.

no support that your two verses are valid since they only appear in Matthew, while other Books about Jesus don't make such claims.

no refutation about Jesus spending time, teaching Non Jews...

you know, I'm starting to lean towards the fact that maybe he really didn't say those words. his attitude to non-jews (outside of Matthew) speaks differently than those two verses. Wonder what the others will think of this?

I did refute it. You admit you believe the Gospels are flawed. That was my point in the first place. Someone who claims that Jesus was sent to all people did not get it from an infallible Gospel. My original claim. Still my claim. One MUST argue the original Gospels are flawed to draw your conclusion. You've admitted it. I'm satisfied. We agree. We both find that you believe that the only way to reach the ALL PEOPLE claim is flawed Gospels.

What Jesus said was the work of God. What got written down was written down by humans.

OUt of curiosity - I've joined a little late here - do you think, given the bible was written by humans, that we can trust it? How much, if at all?

you keep saying that, yet his works, deeds and, yes, Teachings, lay false to your definition of All Nations.

and it's very easy to reach your conclusion. first remove all books from the Bible except for Matthew. then prune liberally with chainsaw.

everyone arguing against you has said, that you don't just focus on one Book. but like a broken record, that's all you are doing.

you challenged me and even assured me that you will keep an open mind. yet, when I provided proof of Jesus staying two days teaching non jews, you close your mind.

You show one time where he rested and taught Samaritans. He did not seek them. They sought Him. I prune nothing. Your view requires the original Gospels to be flawed. You've admitted it. I'm glad you have. It was what I was trying to prove. Please convince Corny for me. I was trying to convince him of the same. THanks.

Really? John 4. It seems like he makes it pretty clear to her that he doesn't think much of the Samaritans. He says again that faith will save. Where does he say he was sent to the Gentiles? It seems like he only set out to get some water. And he was too kind to abandon them. A little bit less than compelling particularly when trying to contradict the expressed words of the Christ.
your challenge was to find Jesus teaching and spreading his word to others outside the Jewish Community.

he wanted water and the woman upheld the tradition of the interaction between Jews and Samaritans. but at the end, she left her pot for him to drink from.

He didn't need to stay. the Well was a public well, he would've been within his rights to drink and leave. but he stayed because the people showed their interest and their faith.

you are now changing the rules of your own challange.

I'll tell you what. Show a passage, any passage quoting Jesus in his life stating that he was here to help ANYONE that was not among the lost sheep. He does help on occasion, but usually reluctantly or to correct the inappropraite actions of his disciples (like the Roman ear).


21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."here you go.
the woman said that the Messiah is coming, when he comes, he will explain everything to US (Samaritans, if you wish, or non-jews if you wish.) and what was Jesus's reply? I am that person. thus he said that he was the one to make all things clear to you and yours. a direct quote against the only Jews belief.

then later, still in John 4
39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.

so he taught them. spread the word to them.

Challenge Met.

Actually, Jesus didn't. It was a big point of contention between peter and paul, and in one of the books (COll, maybe?) Peter and Paul have it out. ONe wanted to bring the word to the Gentiles, the other didn't. BUt, on a different point, let me say this:

the bible was translated three or four time before it ever got to let, before it was written down, even. How can this thing accurately represent the word of a God?

it acuritly represents something God has allowed to happen, we may not know why but we do know that he has. i agree the translations that we have to day are really terrible compared to when they are in the origional greek or hebrew, and even then we have no idea how accurait they are. but what pisses me off is when christian get in it point less arguments like this. it goes with teh saying, christians to day are the numberone reaon that there are not more christions.
what does it matter if we all read the same passege and come up with a different conclution of that it means. HELLO this is what God wanted. its how we can have a personal reationship with him. i can read the same verse over and over again and each time some thing differnt jumps out at me.it may not be the same thing that jumps out at you but why does it matter. God is trying to bring us all closer to him, jew or gentile. its not like GOd does not know that the gentils have acess to the bible and if he did not want us to have it he would not let us have it.

so what iam trying to say is this...so what is some one said some thing that you dont agree with, people say stuff every day that i dont agree with but i dont let it bother me, i remind my self a that every has a different kind of relation ship with God and if it not the same as mine then who am i to judge.
its stuff like this that can make me ashamed to call my self a christion..thes point less aguments that we constatny get drwan in to the make not differan in the long run.

You show one time where he rested and taught Samaritans. He did not seek them. They sought Him. I prune nothing. Your view requires the original Gospels to be flawed. You've admitted it. I'm glad you have. It was what I was trying to prove. Please convince Corny for me. I was trying to convince him of the same. THanks.
your words
I'll tell you what. Show a passage, any passage quoting Jesus in his life stating that he was here to help ANYONE that was not among the lost sheep. He does help on occasion, but usually reluctantly or to correct the inappropraite actions of his disciples (like the Roman ear).
in John 4 is the quote stating he was for all people.

while Jesus did primariy teach his Disciples, he did not restrict that teaching.

OUt of curiosity - I've joined a little late here - do you think, given the bible was written by humans, that we can trust it? How much, if at all?
The bible is best read with prayer.

it acuritly represents something God has allowed to happen, we may not know why but we do know that he has. i agree the translations that we have to day are really terrible compared to when they are in the origional greek or hebrew, and even then we have no idea how accurait they are. but what pisses me off is when christian get in it point less arguments like this. it goes with teh saying, christians to day are the numberone reaon that there are not more christions.
what does it matter if we all read the same passege and come up with a different conclution of that it means. HELLO this is what God wanted. its how we can have a personal reationship with him. i can read the same verse over and over again and each time some thing differnt jumps out at me.it may not be the same thing that jumps out at you but why does it matter. God is trying to bring us all closer to him, jew or gentile. its not like GOd does not know that the gentils have acess to the bible and if he did not want us to have it he would not let us have it.

so what iam trying to say is this...so what is some one said some thing that you dont agree with, people say stuff every day that i dont agree with but i dont let it bother me, i remind my self a that every has a different kind of relation ship with God and if it not the same as mine then who am i to judge.
its stuff like this that can make me ashamed to call my self a christion..thes point less aguments that we constatny get drwan in to the make not differan in the long run.of course I agree with you on this.

but there are others here claiming infallibility with the translations and missing the point entirely.

Jesus, in his life, never turned away anyone who was honest in their faith or was honest in their search for faith. even when people forced themselves on Him, he was gracious.

tho I will admit, I've learned alot about the Bible from this thread. so a thanks to Jocabia and GnI for their assistance in strengthening my Faith. :D

Where did I amend it? I am going by his exact words. He NEVER said ALL people and he explicitly said the opposite. It's not hard to reach my conclusion.

I've proven it. Two of you are arguing that the original Gospels are flawed. Will Corny argue it too so we can make it all of you?
I never said the original Gospels were necessarily flawed, merely that the ones we have today in English are certainly flawed because they have been translated repeatedly. Quit misrepresenting what I said. Stick to misrepresenting Jesus.

Yes, but we have evidence of what the original Gospels said. And nothing about them have I found as contradiction. Only y'all have. I've proven. I've said all along you all believe the original gospels are flawed. Now, I've proven it. My work is done. Let's not claim they are the work of God when y'all are claiming they are just writings of man.
EDIT: Anglachel and Anguirel answered it better.

it also appears that only you don't see the contradiction... unles you have other scriptures besides the two in matthew to support your claim.

still. . .gotta question going to the bible for anything. I mean, it doesn't seem to me that it was always about a personal relationship with god. When society outpaced the bible and the laws drawn from it became fuzzier with the advent of technology, THEN it suddenly became; "oh, use the bible to find your own path" after two thousand years of sying the bible is the way to THE ONE TRUE PATH.

One could argue that the reasons why christians are 'struggling' is because if a bible relates on a PERSONAL level, then why have a blanket of religons all called the same thing? After all, a religion is an interpretation applied to a group, not an individual, and this would most definately interfere with ones personal relationship with God.

still. . .gotta question going to the bible for anything. I mean, it doesn't seem to me that it was always about a personal relationship with god. When society outpaced the bible and the laws drawn from it became fuzzier with the advent of technology, THEN it suddenly became; "oh, use the bible to find your own path" after two thousand years of sying the bible is the way to THE ONE TRUE PATH.

One could argue that the reasons why christians are 'struggling' is because if a bible relates on a PERSONAL level, then why have a blanket of religons all called the same thing? After all, a religion is an interpretation applied to a group, not an individual, and this would most definately interfere with ones personal relationship with God.

it wasn't ment to be a "religion" it was ment to be personal. we have turned it in to a religion

One last thought before I log for the night:

I believe we all here (at least Jocabia, JuNii, Corneliu, and I) are monotheists, and believe in a single God, the God who is described in the Bible.

Jesus was the Son of God. He spread a message of hope, love, faith, and redemption. Why would he decide that only one group of people should love God and be loved by God? There is no reason for it, none whatsoever. Jocabia, if you were not of Jewish blood (I assume you are) would you still insist that God's holy message is that you are to be excluded? No, you would not. Say what you will, but you know it as well as I do.

still. . .gotta question going to the bible for anything. I mean, it doesn't seem to me that it was always about a personal relationship with god. When society outpaced the bible and the laws drawn from it became fuzzier with the advent of technology, THEN it suddenly became; "oh, use the bible to find your own path" after two thousand years of sying the bible is the way to THE ONE TRUE PATH.

One could argue that the reasons why christians are 'struggling' is because if a bible relates on a PERSONAL level, then why have a blanket of religons all called the same thing? After all, a religion is an interpretation applied to a group, not an individual, and this would most definately interfere with ones personal relationship with God.because fellowship with other worshippers is also a good thing. there ideas and interpretations can be exchanged as well as support for troubled times.

Sometimes how God works is he arrainges for people to meet. and in that meeting, solutions are found. wether or not they are reconized... or applied... is another thing.

I remember questioning my pastor on alot of things... some, he admitted, were new to him, and he went to ponder them, as I went to think about what he said. and when we met again, we found some common ground as well as some not so common ground. it is within this fellowship that faith spreads and grows. it also allows the faithful to strengthen and support one another.

it wasn't ment to be a "religion" it was ment to be personal. we have turned it in to a religion

well, if whatever god said that was touched by man is now suspect - which seems to be the case - then what good is it? How is the bible any more valid than Lord of the Rings or Narnia (both of which touched me more than the bible).

All I hear from Christians my whole life is "oh, it was all mans fault, that's not what God REALLY intended." how the f@#k do we know this? If we're so flawed and imperfect, how can we know if it wasn't God's intention for us all to be, say, Lutherans or Amish? How do we know all of a sudden that we use it to form a personal relationship with god? this to me seems to be looking at something that has been revealed as a lie (or not that close to the truth, at the very least) but because people cannot really deal with the vast nothingness after death they have to hang on to it in any way they can. NOthing wrong with this necessarily, just gotta be honest.

well, if whatever god said that was touched by man is now suspect - which seems to be the case - then what good is it? How is the bible any more valid than Lord of the Rings or Narnia (both of which touched me more than the bible).

All I hear from Christians my whole life is "oh, it was all mans fault, that's not what God REALLY intended." how the f@#k do we know this? If we're so flawed and imperfect, how can we know if it wasn't God's intention for us all to be, say, Lutherans or Amish? How do we know all of a sudden that we use it to form a personal relationship with god? this to me seems to be looking at something that has been revealed as a lie (or not that close to the truth, at the very least) but because people cannot really deal with the vast nothingness after death they have to hang on to it in any way they can. NOthing wrong with this necessarily, just gotta be honest.


ther is nothing wrong with being honist and i will happely admit i dont have all of the answers that you are looking for heck were probly looking for basicaly the same ones. the thing is we dont know but despit not knowing we have faith(at least this i how i live). its true i have been "touched" by books more thatn i have been by the bible. the reason that i still hold on to my faith is tht i have seen the differance that it makes in peoples lives heck i know that i has made an enormus differance in my own life. i think that you should read mere christianity by cs lewis. he goes over a lot of this stuff and it makes some sence.

as for the death thing this is some thing that i have considderd. to be perfectly honist with you i have really struggled with my faith in the past few months and had thought alot of this iver but i keep comming back to the same thing, the are to many compicated and unexplaind things in the world for it to have just happened on its own. death is the same way..why shoulent the be something after this life? its a commen trend in sociotys to persive taht there is something after this life. what it is we may not know for sure but every lie holds a hint of truth right? so even it Heaven is not waht is next( i think it is) then something must be...

How do you learn anything about it, then (as anything you learn about it would be "the way")?
I meant "the way" as in "the way to salvation" and "the way to live a righteous life" and such like. Animism isn't about that sort of thing.

I think there are two kinds of religious texts. There are myths, which become texts only if someone bothers to write them down, and which are essentially religious art in which the spiritual meaning is sublimated into symbol. Myth cycles may contain moral precepts and they may, in their stories, "explain" this or that basic belief (like how the world got made or why we put lights on Yule trees), but as you have often pointed out, that is not really their purpose. The meaning of myths transcends their content. They are about experiencing something. So I think it is appropriate to say that myths don't teach religion.

Then there are scriptures, which purport to teach not only the real and mythic histories of the given religion, but also the moral and social codes that adherents are expected to live by. Scriptural texts may also contain liturgies, prayers, and other presumably magically efficacious ritual formulas for the religion. Such texts may be difficult to understand or interpret, but they are typically not symbolic or transcendant. They are meant for teaching the religion, so they contain instructions, rules, laws, and describe the rewards for following them (such as heaven) and the bad results of not following them (such as hell).

Animism has lots and lots of myths but no scriptural texts. You get wonderful, grand mythic cycles -- beautiful literature and ripping yarns -- from animist societies around the world that describe in the symbolism of art their spiritual cosmos, the nature of spirits and souls, the relationship between humans and spirits, and all kinds of spiritual experiences that people have.

But what you don't get is anything like an animist Bible or Quran -- a text that will teach you how to be an animist. It does not exist. You just either are one or you're not. You either think this way, or you don't.

(Note: Some heavily studied Pacific animist cultures do have elaborate codes and rules to follow, but it's not the same thing. These are "taboo" cultures in which the taboos are rules of things that must be done or must not be done under this or that circumstance for magical reasons, and they are not like scriptural codes in two ways. First, they are not moral codes. And second, they are not written down and are not taught to people outside the society, village, or even just the family group. Also, the concept of taboo is specific to Pacific cultures and is not part of animism.)

As for learning how to "do" animism -- the ritualistic aspects of it -- well, that is based in cultural tradition, and varies a lot from place to place. There is no signature ritual of animism, nothing equivalent to the Muslim prayers or the Catholic mass. Even in the most organized animist religion, Japanese Shrine Shinto, which may be the only animist religion that has a professional clergy, the priests write their own prayers and design their own rituals and can change them any time they like.

For worshippers practicing privately in their own homes -- which describes the majority of animists because it is the most common tradition -- the rule is pretty much "do what you feel." Animism is about interacting with the world around you, so "do what you feel" works very well. You try to stay open and receptive to the spirits around you, and whatever you get from them, you respond to it and give something of yours/yourself back. Spontaneous expressions on the spur of the moment are highly prized.

But how does anyone learn even this much? Well, you kind of almost have to start out knowing it. You kind of have to just be or become an animist -- spontaneously, presto! Animism is not evangelical. Nobody's out there saying, "Hey, become an animist. It'll make your life better. Here's how." You either have a sense that the universe is alive with spirits, or you don't. I had that sense all my life, and lucky for me there is a 100,000 year history of animism for me to draw on because I don't live in an animist society that I could conform to. But even in animist societies, there are people who are not animists because they just don't have that sense or feeling about the universe. They end up being the ones in their communities who have to look for a different path to follow.

ther is nothing wrong with being honist and i will happely admit i dont have all of the answers that you are looking for heck were probly looking for basicaly the same ones. the thing is we dont know but despit not knowing we have faith(at least this i how i live). its true i have been "touched" by books more thatn i have been by the bible. the reason that i still hold on to my faith is tht i have seen the differance that it makes in peoples lives heck i know that i has made an enormus differance in my own life. i think that you should read mere christianity by cs lewis. he goes over a lot of this stuff and it makes some sence.

as for the death thing this is some thing that i have considderd. to be perfectly honist with you i have really struggled with my faith in the past few months and had thought alot of this iver but i keep comming back to the same thing, the are to many compicated and unexplaind things in the world for it to have just happened on its own. death is the same way..why shoulent the be something after this life? its a commen trend in sociotys to persive taht there is something after this life. what it is we may not know for sure but every lie holds a hint of truth right? so even it Heaven is not waht is next( i think it is) then something must be...

well, you do have a point with the C.S. Lewis. He's my kind of christian. The screwtap letters made me smile. You really could look at it all as a devil over your shoulder, confusing you the whole way. And he went into his research hoping to disprove Christianity, so he makes a compelling argument, but his view - however compelling - is HIS VIEW. Hell, Hitler had a view you could spin in a certain light to make it nearly believable, he wrote a book.

But, I believe that while there are unexplained things in the world, it doesn't mean they do not have an explanation. Let's not forget that for hundreds of years the earth was flat and the stars were pinpricks in the veil seperating earth from heaven. Later, these things were explained. And as for faith making a difference in peoples lives, I've seen the same. I have also seen peoples lives get more and more difficult after they converted.

I guess if you have to put what I'm saying on a t - shirt, it would be; why God? Why not trust and have faith in yourself? Why do either of us NEED god?

One last thought before I log for the night:

I believe we all here (at least Jocabia, JuNii, Corneliu, and I) are monotheists, and believe in a single God, the God who is described in the Bible.

Jesus was the Son of God. He spread a message of hope, love, faith, and redemption. Why would he decide that only one group of people should love God and be loved by God? There is no reason for it, none whatsoever. Jocabia, if you were not of Jewish blood (I assume you are) would you still insist that God's holy message is that you are to be excluded? No, you would not. Say what you will, but you know it as well as I do.
You're not just assuming monotheism, you're further assuming all the monotheists are Christians. No room for Jews and Muslims?

BTW, I'm a polytheist.

Somebody correct me if I missed something -- I haven't really been studying this argument -- but isn't GnI the one with Jewish ancestry? I though Jocabia wasn't Jewish. It doesn't make any difference; I'm just curious.

well, you do have a point with the C.S. Lewis. He's my kind of christian. The screwtap letters made me smile. You really could look at it all as a devil over your shoulder, confusing you the whole way. And he went into his research hoping to disprove Christianity, so he makes a compelling argument, but his view - however compelling - is HIS VIEW. Hell, Hitler had a view you could spin in a certain light to make it nearly believable, he wrote a book.

But, I believe that while there are unexplained things in the world, it doesn't mean they do not have an explanation. Let's not forget that for hundreds of years the earth was flat and the stars were pinpricks in the veil seperating earth from heaven. Later, these things were explained. And as for faith making a difference in peoples lives, I've seen the same. I have also seen peoples lives get more and more difficult after they converted.

I guess if you have to put what I'm saying on a t - shirt, it would be; why God? Why not trust and have faith in yourself? Why do either of us NEED god?

God never promised that if we converted life wold get easyer, heck it says just the opposit. your right CS lewis put his view out there iam not saying that you have to agree but they do make you think...the point is YOU have to deside waht to beileve no one elce can make the choice for you. and your right there are some unexplainde things that may one day have an explination but i think taht some of them are ment to never be figured out.

the last three questions are quetions taht you are going to have to figure out on your own. for me iam still trying to answer them and i probly will be for the rest of my life but the thing is that i have picked someintg taht i think is the answer. i think that i need a God becaues iam one messed up person and despit all of thathits nice to know taht something out there loves me no mater what i do. it a personalthing i guess...

You're not just assuming monotheism, you're further assuming all the monotheists are Christians. No room for Jews and Muslims?

BTW, I'm a polytheist.

Somebody correct me if I missed something -- I haven't really been studying this argument -- but isn't GnI the one with Jewish ancestry? I though Jocabia wasn't Jewish.

Oh, and what difference does it make what his ancestors were, if he is a Christian?
a slight generalization. I'm assuming he meant no harm in it. :p

a slight generalization. I'm assuming he meant no harm in it. :p
Yeah, I know he didn't mean anything by it. I'm getting a little reminder in there. ;)

God never promised that if we converted life wold get easyer, heck it says just the opposit. your right CS lewis put his view out there iam not saying that you have to agree but they do make you think...the point is YOU have to deside waht to beileve no one elce can make the choice for you. and your right there are some unexplainde things that may one day have an explination but i think taht some of them are ment to never be figured out.

the last three questions are quetions taht you are going to have to figure out on your own. for me iam still trying to answer them and i probly will be for the rest of my life but the thing is that i have picked someintg taht i think is the answer. i think that i need a God becaues iam one messed up person and despit all of thathits nice to know taht something out there loves me no mater what i do. it a personalthing i guess...

Man, I respect this, I really do. Your opinion is your opinion and I'm not going to get on like some asshole mocking your beliefs. But I will leave you with this. YOU picked GOD because you NEEDED him, and for no other reason. He did not pick you. You simply needed something to help you deal with your reality, and you picked him.

Maybe, maybe it is only when we stand naked before the gaping triviality of life that we can gain any freedom. For in that moment when all hope is fled, you realize that you are the God of your own world, and no one can save you but you.

And maybe this will be the most liberating and empowering moment of your life.

Thanx, and good nite! Thanx for commin' out!

I'm agnostic. I admit that I have no proof that god doesn't exist, but I have no proof that he does either.

I don't have any proof either way, therefore I can't make any specific conclusion that's factual. I can't prove my imaginary friend does exist and I can't prove that he doesn't. So therefore, I can't prove anything. So I can't say he does or doesn't exist.

If I had to pick, I would say no. Why? Look around you. Look me in the eye and tell me a two year old getting raped is due justice for her not letting god into her life, or her parents not letting god into their life even. For me, it's not a balance. Human beings are screwed up, I'll give you that. But if we're so unintelligent and unperfect and can't help but to screw up, why do we deserve hell? That's like saying a toddler who runs into a lions cage without knowing the repercussions of it deserves to get mauled by the lion. I don't believe anyone deserves to be left out or tormented. No one.

I don't believe in "right" and "wrong". They aren't universal. It all depends on where you were raised and what you believe. People have killed believing they are right just as much as people have encouraged peace believing they are right. Morality is subjective. Yes, I still have my own beliefs of what I feel isn't okay and is okay, but that doesn't make them the truth and it doesn't give me the right to tell other people what to believe and what not to believe.

I think we should all tolerate eachother, even if we disagree so much. But then again, I'm not dumb enough to think that that's actually going to happen.

Yeah, I know he didn't mean anything by it. I'm getting a little reminder in there. ;)
oh, and your question about ancestory is this. Jocabia and GnI has been arguing or supporting the notion that Jesus's messages and teaching was not meant for the whole world but only for the Jews.

Man, I respect this, I really do. Your opinion is your opinion and I'm not going to get on like some asshole mocking your beliefs. But I will leave you with this. YOU picked GOD because you NEEDED him, and for no other reason. He did not pick you. You simply needed something to help you deal with your reality, and you picked him.

Maybe, maybe it is only when we stand naked before the gaping triviality of life that we can gain any freedom. For in that moment when all hope is fled, you realize that you are the God of your own world, and no one can save you but you.

And maybe this will be the most liberating and empowering moment of your life.

Thanx, and good nite! Thanx for commin' out!

thanks :)
night to you as well:)
and your right i did pick God cuz i do need him

thanks :)
night to you as well:)
and your right i did pick God cuz i do need him
nicely said and nicely done Antikythera... (can I call you Anti? ;) )

oh, and your question about ancestory is this. Jocabia and GnI has been arguing or supporting the notion that Jesus's messages and teaching was not meant for the whole world but only for the Jews.
I studied the argument that much at least. Sheesh. :rolleyes: ;)

But Antikythera specifically said something about Jocabia having Jewish blood. That's what I was wondering about.

nicely said and nicely done Antikythera... (can I call you Anti? ;) )

yep :)

I studied the argument that much at least. Sheesh. :rolleyes: ;)

But Antikythera specifically said something about Jocabia having Jewish blood. That's what I was wondering about.
twasn't me...:confused:

I studied the argument that much at least. Sheesh. :rolleyes: ;)

But Antikythera specifically said something about Jocabia having Jewish blood. That's what I was wondering about.
you mean Anglachel and Anguirel, (for Anti's sake ;) )

I think the comment was to say that if jocabia was not of Jewish blood, would he/she argue about Jesus only preaching to the Jews.

me, I don't care what blood flows in your veins. I believe... aww heck, if you followed that then you know what I believe. :D

twasn't me...:confused:
Oops, sorry, wrong person. My bad. I'm up past my bedtime.

Oops, sorry, wrong person. My bad. I'm up past my bedtime.
lol not to worrie. iam up way late to:) it happens to the best of us.

you mean Anglachel and Anguirel, (for Anti's sake ;) )

I think the comment was to say that if jocabia was not of Jewish blood, would he/she argue about Jesus only preaching to the Jews.

me, I don't care what blood flows in your veins. I believe... aww heck, if you followed that then you know what I believe. :D
Yep, sorry, I had the wrong guy. Thanks for the correction.

And, yes, that is what Anglachel and Anguirel was saying, but I was under the impression that Jocabia is not of Jewish blood. That's GnI's bio, not Jocabia's. So I was wondering if I'm learning a new thing about Jocabia, or if A&A got him confused with GnI. Or maybe I'm the one who has those two guys hopelessly confused.

DAMMIT! Where's my scorecard?!

lol not to worrie. iam up way late to:) it happens to the best of us.
You're name's shorter than his, so I guess my fingers like it better. :D

All right, that's it. You're all turning into a big blur in my head. I'm going to bed. Ciao, kids.

You're name's shorter than his, so I guess my fingers like it better. :D
lol:p
night:D

Yep, sorry, I had the wrong guy. Thanks for the correction.

And, yes, that is what Anglachel and Anguirel was saying, but I was under the impression that Jocabia is not of Jewish blood. That's GnI's bio, not Jocabia's. So I was wondering if I'm learning a new thing about Jocabia, or if A&A got him confused with GnI. Or maybe I'm the one who has those two guys hopelessly confused.

DAMMIT! Where's my scorecard?!I gave up on the scoring a loong time ago.

the shock of me actually siding with canukheaven made me forget all about keeping score.

Sorry, missed this one.
No, I'm showing the context. It could have meant all people but that would be a contradiction. It could have meant the Jews from all nations. That would not be a contradiction. When no contradiction exists I do not create one.we've shown otherwise. the proof in both his words and deeds verses your interpretation of two and only two verses in one book. and sit there and accused us of Ammending his words, thus if I am guilty in your eyes of amending his words, then so are you.

Nor does it say NOT to. However, it does say to go to a specific people in other parts of the Gospels. You wish for that one statement to stand alone and to ignore the context where he says several times that He is here for the Jews.you are the one wishing for one statement or two to stand alone and you are the one ignoring the context of verses. he says in several times? show me then. other than the two verses in Matthew, come forth and lay your evidence down so that all may examine it. We shown other scripture, more than two infact, that he said and has done otherwise. please show me where those two verses are supported anywhere else in his journies.

I did refute it. You admit you believe the Gospels are flawed. That was my point in the first place. Someone who claims that Jesus was sent to all people did not get it from an infallible Gospel. My original claim. Still my claim. One MUST argue the original Gospels are flawed to draw your conclusion. You've admitted it. I'm satisfied. We agree. We both find that you believe that the only way to reach the ALL PEOPLE claim is flawed Gospels.no, I admitted no such thing, nor have I refuted such claims. for I read the Gospels as God instructs me to read those Gospels. We asked for proof and you amend and give Speculation while accusing others of doing the same. I met your challenge and disproved your interpretation of the events. You claim falsely that what was said in Matthew is Jesus's exact words. a fallacy in and of itself that is not supported in any other accounting of his works or words.

What Went Wrong?

God gave our first parents, Adam and Eve, a perfect start. They had perfect bodies and minds and a paradise garden for a home. That was God's purpose for the human race.—If they had submitted to God's rule, they would have remained perfect and happy. In time, they would have been the parents of an entire perfect, happy human family living on a paradise earth. Genesis 1:27-29; 2:15.

You know, Ive wondered if anyone has the same opinions on Genesis that I do.
I find it to be a perfect example of how backwards the ideology of god can be.

God gave our first parents, Adam and Eve, a perfect start. They had perfect bodies and minds and a paradise garden for a home.

We are meant to assume that Adam and Eve were "perfect".
Perfect in every detail, and exactly as God planned them to be.
However, already from the start, they were really flawed.

They surely possessed the capabilty for wrong-doing.


If they had submitted to God's rule, they would have remained perfect and happy. In time, they would have been the parents of an entire perfect, happy human family living on a paradise earth. Genesis 1:27-29; 2:15.

What rule did they break that earned them exhile from paradise and a life of hardship?

As we know, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, after being tempted by the devil, in disguise of a serpent.

So, after not possessing the willpower to resist temptation by a cosmic being, whos power suppossedly is unsurpassed except by God Himself....
...Adam and Eve are punished for learning.

Does that make any sense to anyone?!

The fruit of the tree is surely a metaphor for learning, or information.
Thus, becuase God strictly, and explicitly instructed them NOT to eat of that damned tree, we are assuming that there was information that God wished withheld.

In essence Genesis is telling us that learning, and questioning are the worst crime one can do.
This one instance, was God's justification for allowing sin to enter the world.
In essence, because Adam and Eve learned of things like modesty, or of the world around them, God decided that life would forever suck for everyone, from THEN ON.

God prefers us ignorant, is what Genesis is telling us.

I meant "the way" as in "the way to salvation" and "the way to live a righteous life" and such like. Animism isn't about that sort of thing....

<snip!>



Wow, Muravyets! Excellent post, my friend. What you described here is very close to how I feel, also.

Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed it. :)

The key question, of course, is how did everything begin? Was there a big bang like science says - and all the components of the universe just appeared out of nothing? Well that’s a pretty preposterous idea, really. Or maybe there was a God and he said “the Word2 and that god had already been existing for a whole eternity doing nothing just waiting for the right time to say the word. Equally preposterous.

So in other words - it’s a toss up, an I don’t know, whether there is a god or not. It can only be 50/50 because there is no evidence either way.

The best evidence for a god(s) is that people pray to him and get an answer, however, it doesn’t matter whether they are Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Confucian, Maori, Wicca or any other breed of religion they all get answers from him or her. Now that can be interpreted two different ways …

Either there is a god and s/he really doesn’t care which religion you follow - Or men get answers from somewhere inside themselves that they call god. So really its not much of an argument for either side.

However - it now gives us a slightly different position - there is a 50/50 chance that there was some sort of divine creator - but apparently s/he doesn’t really care how we worship them ….

As to the Bible – its an interesting book. I have read most of it over the years. What is really interesting is if you compare the stories in the bible to various myths that were around about the world at the same sort of time. Many of the stories are the same or similar - across the various myths and the Bible. Now if you take a big step and treat the bible as a mythological document - and do a comparative mythological study on it with those other text from about the same time - you get a high level of correlation. Many of those other mythologies had the same, or similar, miracles accredited to other gods.

What is even more interesting, is if you do the same sort of tests on other known myths - for example the Celtic myths - and even the robin hood myth - you see the same sorts of correlations and you see the same sort of transfer of miraculous/magic deeds. It even works with things like Robin Hood and King Arthur.

So evidence there that the bible is a mythological hodgepodge - especially the earlier chapters. There is a semi-sensible timeline appears in the old testament - However, the only reason that makes an real historical sense - is because the explorers who started digging up ancient Egypt and all of those other historical places - were devout Christians who believed in the bible and its time line - and they made the information fit what they knew. Modern archaeological research - really asks some very hard questions about that time line.

Take that with modern discoveries and the Biblical timeline really starts to look questionable. Not only are there the various chemical/physical dating techniques, which are often called in to question (although most of the articles that questions them really exaggerate the margin of error). However, recent evidence from seismological studies and earth science, back up the age ranges proposed by other scientists. In fact, if you take the biblical time line as accurate - you have to do away with most modern advanced scientific observation. You need to start questioning Biology, earth science, astronomy and a fair few others. All in all, the evidence against a biblical time line is start to stack up.

Indeed, there is stuff that looks historically accurate in the old testament, and like any enduring story, it has to be based on the society that people of the times would recognise. For an example - go read, ‘First Among Equals’ by Jeffrey Archer. Lots of really good information about the British parliament in there - but a total fiction from one end to the other. Read it in a few years time and it might look historically accurate ….

So that pretty much blows the Old Testament, Judaism and the basics of Islam out of the window.

So that just leaves Jesus, Mohammed, the various Buddha’s and a few prophets to deal with. I suspect they were all very able politicians who worked what ever system they had at the time. Jesus worked with Judaism (and very probably believed it him self) to get the political point across that he wanted. Same with Mohammed. And they both did a very good job of it, so did many of the Buddha’s and other prophets. Their philosophies are still going strong today.

However, as soon as the churches become organised - they start to get political - take the Muslim leaders now - Or even the pope - his rulings that contraceptives are bad and that homosexuality is a sin - have caused all sorts of hardship and pain for untold millions of people.

IMO There might be a god, but there is about a 0000.1% chance of it being any of the gods that are worshipped (although it might be an amalgam of all of them) – and there are a few successful philosophies that are fighting for supremacy - and sometimes it comes down to physical fighting - sometimes it stays as name calling …

Sorry, missed this one.
we've shown otherwise. the proof in both his words and deeds verses your interpretation of two and only two verses in one book. and sit there and accused us of Ammending his words, thus if I am guilty in your eyes of amending his words, then so are you.

you are the one wishing for one statement or two to stand alone and you are the one ignoring the context of verses. he says in several times? show me then. other than the two verses in Matthew, come forth and lay your evidence down so that all may examine it. We shown other scripture, more than two infact, that he said and has done otherwise. please show me where those two verses are supported anywhere else in his journies.

no, I admitted no such thing, nor have I refuted such claims. for I read the Gospels as God instructs me to read those Gospels. We asked for proof and you amend and give Speculation while accusing others of doing the same. I met your challenge and disproved your interpretation of the events. You claim falsely that what was said in Matthew is Jesus's exact words. a fallacy in and of itself that is not supported in any other accounting of his works or words.

So other than those two verses? I've shown that there is nothing contradictory in the Gospels about those verses unless one chooses to interpret to be a contradiction. So choose to believe the Jesus contradicted himself. Or choose to believe Matthew was wrong. But I don't have to say "other than" when I'm talking about this, because you can't give me one example that means he MUST have been sent to other than the Jews. But I gave you examples that say the opposite of what you're arguing. The best argument you could make against it is that the verses I'm quoting should be ignored according to you, that I must look at verses "other than", that Matthew must have made a mistake and gotten what he said wrong. You have to dismiss those verses because you want so desperately what Paul errantly told us, you want for it to be true.

Paul contradicted Jesus. Argue that he didn't all you like, but the only place we find that Jesus must have come for other than he did come for is outside of the Gospels. Inside the Gospels the message is entirely consistent unless one choose to ignore one or two verses so they can pretend that Jesus' life meant something other than it did.

I haven't dismissed a single verse. I just don't take them out of context to have a meaning they do not have. John 4 was not the event you try to make it be. All nations does not have to mean all people and all indications are to the opposite. We see him refer to Gentiles as dogs and says that what is sacred is not meant for the dogs. All indications are that whatever he might have done for Gentiles out of pity that was not his purpose here. And that message is entirely consistent until people start to ignore "a couple of verses" and add context and take the word of men, like Paul, over the Word of Jesus.

You keep acting like I'm ignoring other verses, but none of what you presenting creates an issue for me. I find it entirely consistent. I haven't had to argue that perhaps what you're presenting is mistakes on Matthew's part. You have had to argue that. And you've had to do so, because you are the one arguing for the inconsistent message. A message that cannot be reached unless one start with the premise that Paul's vision must be kept whole even if it contradicts the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.

I never said the original Gospels were necessarily flawed, merely that the ones we have today in English are certainly flawed because they have been translated repeatedly. Quit misrepresenting what I said. Stick to misrepresenting Jesus.

We have much of what the original Gospels said. Much evidence of where changes occurred and how. It's quite simple really. And fine, say that what we have is flawed, but the only evidence you've presented for your case is that you want them to be flawed because you don't like their message otherwise.

here is my question

why is nit picking pointless details like this importiant to the christan faith?
wouldnt you agree it would be more efective to say, " hey we dont have all the answers but what maters is that we have the faith to bileve what we have been given"?

Because Jocabia here is saying that because I am not a Jew, I am not going to heaven.

Because people made a false claim earlier and it is important that people not misrepresent the Savior. Faith can save all, but Jesus was NOT sent to all. They are not the same thing.

No one here made a false claim.

sorry, you just lost it. you are now amending what he said.

no where does he say to go to any specific people when he mentioned ALL NATIONS.

mat24:14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

proof that you are amending words to Jesus. something you say you were not doing.

no support that your two verses are valid since they only appear in Matthew, while other Books about Jesus don't make such claims.

no refutation about Jesus spending time, teaching Non Jews...

you know, I'm starting to lean towards the fact that maybe he really didn't say those words. his attitude to non-jews (outside of Matthew) speaks differently than those two verses. Wonder what the others will think of this?

JuNii, you are wonderful. Keep it up my friend.

Where did I amend it? I am going by his exact words. He NEVER said ALL people and he explicitly said the opposite. It's not hard to reach my conclusion.

I've proven it. Two of you are arguing that the original Gospels are flawed. Will Corny argue it too so we can make it all of you?

Jocabia, we have shown you where you have amended His words. I cannot believe that you have not seen what we have pointed out to you that you have indeed amended the words of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

I asked Jesus to help me pass my drivers test, and He did. I believe it, no matter how much I haved driven. I am not good at tests. He helps me be directed to good things, sometimes I slip out and commit a sin but I call on Jesus and I feel so much better. Jesus is the only way to eternity in Heaven. I am glad I know I am going somewhere much better than our earth, but I love people and God, I want to testify his love he has for me and what he has done in my life. All you have to do ask Jesus to come in your life and he can direct you to a better path. Its not easy but I know my faith in Christ, I overcome the worldly obessions and I can live happily in a dark world.

We have much of what the original Gospels said. Much evidence of where changes occurred and how. It's quite simple really. And fine, say that what we have is flawed, but the only evidence you've presented for your case is that you want them to be flawed because you don't like their message otherwise.

Stop judging others Jocabia. You told me to stop judging others and yet you have done so all throughout the thread. Practice what you preach.

I asked Jesus to help me pass my drivers test, and He did. I believe it, no matter how much I haved driven. I am not good at tests. He helps me be directed to good things, sometimes I slip out and commit a sin but I call on Jesus and I feel so much better. Jesus is the only way to eternity in Heaven. I am glad I know I am going somewhere much better than our earth, but I love people and God, I want to testify his love he has for me and what he has done in my life. All you have to do ask Jesus to come in your life and he can direct you to a better path. Its not easy but I know my faith in Christ, I overcome the worldly obessions and I can live happily in a dark world.


Oh please. Start by throwing out your computer to overcome your worldly obessions because I don't think I could handle you posting ever again.

Jesus didn't help you pass your driver's test. YOU past your driver's test. Jesus did not change the answers for you. Jesus did not tell you the correct answers. And Jesus did not help you study. All you did was say, "Please Lord, allow me to pass this test, and I'll never look at those pictures on the internet again."

Oh please. Start by throwing out your computer to overcome your worldly obessions because I don't think I could handle you posting ever again.

Jesus didn't help you pass your driver's test. YOU past your driver's test. Jesus did not change the answers for you. Jesus did not tell you the correct answers. And Jesus did not help you study. All you did was say, "Please Lord, allow me to pass this test, and I'll never look at those pictures on the internet again."

Oh be quiet. Who are you to say that Jesus didn't help him in an indirect way? He admitted that he/she has a problem taking tests so who are you to say that God didn't help him/her?

*snip* ...But how does anyone learn even this much? Well, you kind of almost have to start out knowing it. You kind of have to just be or become an animist -- spontaneously, presto! Animism is not evangelical. Nobody's out there saying, "Hey, become an animist. It'll make your life better. Here's how." You either have a sense that the universe is alive with spirits, or you don't. I had that sense all my life, and lucky for me there is a 100,000 year history of animism for me to draw on because I don't live in an animist society that I could conform to. But even in animist societies, there are people who are not animists because they just don't have that sense or feeling about the universe. They end up being the ones in their communities who have to look for a different path to follow.
Thank you. That was very thorough.
:)

Oh be quiet. Who are you to say that Jesus didn't help him in an indirect way? He admitted that he/she has a problem taking tests so who are you to say that God didn't help him/her?


I'm to say that Jesus didn't help him in an indirect way, or anyway at all. This is the equivilent of me asking Jesus to help me win the lottery. Passing a test is done by studying, not by Jesus. This guy has his religious tank so full that he believes even taking tests are affected by Jesus. Sorry, but not giving in to that crap.

Because Jocabia here is saying that because I am not a Jew, I am not going to heaven.
That's not a valid conclusion of what he said. He said, "Faith can save all, but Jesus was NOT sent to all. They are not the same thing."

Do you have faith?

I'm to say that Jesus didn't help him in an indirect way, or anyway at all. This is the equivilent of me asking Jesus to help me win the lottery. Passing a test is done by studying, not by Jesus. This guy has his religious tank so full that he believes even taking tests are affected by Jesus. Sorry, but not giving in to that crap.

You do not have a right to tell him what he should and should not believe. I believe in the Lord Savior as well and I call upon Him as well before a test or starting a difficult task. You do not have the right to tell him that He helped him or not. That is not your place.

To me god is a egomaniac masmurdereur and a rapist.

That's not a valid conclusion of what he said. He said, "Faith can save all, but Jesus was NOT sent to all. They are not the same thing."

Do you have faith?

Of course I do.