Interesting. Another word that never appears is "rapture". Also, "brain". Go figure.
Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" and the word was originally used as a name for the dawn appearance of Venus, the "morning star", which heralded daylight. In the Bible, the serpent in Genesis, commonly equated with Satan in Christian dogma, and also therefore with Lucifer in some, was responsible for bringing the light of understanding to the human race.
This is also parallel with Prometheus, in the Greek myths, who brought fire, and later the "means of life" (so therefore light and understanding, literally) to the human race and was also punished for it. That story also involves a woman (the first woman, in fact) bringing evil upon the human race in the form of Pandora.
There are probably hundreds of references to Lucifer in popular culture but my favorite is Sandman by Neil Gaiman, in which the Christian Lucifer plays an important role (his full name is Lucifer Morningstar). The character was popular enough that he got his own book.
Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" and the word was originally used as a name for the dawn appearance of Venus, the "morning star", which heralded daylight. In the Bible, the serpent in Genesis, commonly equated with Satan in Christian dogma, and also therefore with Lucifer in some, was responsible for bringing the light of understanding to the human race.
This is also parallel with Prometheus, in the Greek myths, who brought fire, and later the "means of life" (so therefore light and understanding, literally) to the human race and was also punished for it. That story also involves a woman (the first woman, in fact) bringing evil upon the human race in the form of Pandora.
There are probably hundreds of references to Lucifer in popular culture but my favorite is Sandman by Neil Gaiman, in which the Christian Lucifer plays an important role (his full name is Lucifer Morningstar). The character was popular enough that he got his own book.
This is also parallel with Prometheus, in the Greek myths, who brought fire, and later the "means of life" (so therefore light and understanding, literally) to the human race and was also punished for it. That story also involves a woman (the first woman, in fact) bringing evil upon the human race in the form of Pandora.
I wonder why women seem to be the "tempters who doom humanity" and why it's always a man who gives the woman the power to doom humanity?
I once saw a movie based around this alleged bible code, I believe the movie was called 'Mageddo', based on the prophecized Apocalyptic battle of Mageddo (hence the word Armageddon). I remember the antichrist breathed flies at a crowd of people for lulz.
/pointless
Armageddon is the name of the place it is intended to occur . If that is what you mean I apologise, I'm pretty knackered ATM.
Supposedly the seven deadly sins are: gluttony, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and wrath.
Some lists (depending on who you ask) use "vanity" to replace one of the above.
The movie "Seven" or Se7en in 1995 with Kevin Spacey, Pitt, Freeman, and Paltrow, and also "Devil's Avocate" with Pacino, Reeves, and Theron from 1997 talk about these so-called 7 deadly sins.
Response: Myth - These sins are NOT deadly, neither are most of the 10 commandments. In fact there were approx 602 commandments originally in biblical times, that were narrowed down to 10 then 2. The only really deadly sin is - sinning against the Holy Spirit. The bible does talk about those things as being sins, but NO WHERE in the bible does it say the above (listed) are the seven (7) deadly sins.
Supposedly the seven deadly sins are: gluttony, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and wrath.
Some lists (depending on who you ask) use "vanity" to replace one of the above.
The movie "Seven" or Se7en in 1995 with Kevin Spacey, Pitt, Freeman, and Paltrow, and also "Devil's Avocate" with Pacino, Reeves, and Theron from 1997 talk about these so-called 7 deadly sins.
Response: Myth - These sins are NOT deadly, neither are most of the 10 commandments. In fact there were approx 602 commandments originally in biblical times, that were narrowed down to 10 then 2. The only really deadly sin is - sinning against the Holy Spirit. The bible does talk about those things as being sins, but NO WHERE in the bible does it say the above (listed) are the seven (7) deadly sins.
Lucifer actually is a made up name and appears no where in the bible - at least as it pertains to Satan. Many may remember the movie "Angel Heart" from 1987 starring Mickey Rourke and Robert Dinero, where Dinero played the devil Louis Cyphre. (Lou-cifer).
Actually the devil is a god, lowercase "g".
Here are some of the descriptions, and/or titles of Satan, the Devil - (not his name):
- "Serpent" - which came to signify "Deceiver"
- "the Tempter"- (Mt 4:3)
- "the Birdcatcher" - (Ps 91:3)
- "the father of the lie" - (Joh 8:44; Re 12:9)
- "the wicked one" (1Jo 5:19)
- "misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Re 12:9)
- "Resister" - can be used to mean individuals as resisters (w/o definate article), but chief resister/ adversary is Satan (w/ definate article)
Also note that the Pharisees used the phrase "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" .
Lucifer was the name of a Babylonian King, as Roundy said,
A descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4, 12), based on Satan filling the king of Babylon with ambitions to have complete domination over the earth, even over God. This king (in biblical times) 'lifted himself up' in his own heart and was in his own eyes and the eyes of his admirers a "shining one", a son of the dawn. Lucifer was retained in the Latin Vulgate because it is merely a translation of the Hebrew word heh.lel', "shining one", which is not a name, but a title describing the boastful position taken by Babylon's dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.
He wasn't possessed, though. Set wasn't involved.
Stop referencing films, it just makes you look stupid.
Lucifer was the name of a Babylonian King, as Roundy said,
NO I said that - see my comments again ...A descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4, 12), based on Satan filling the king of Babylon with ambitions to have complete domination over the earth, even over God. This king (in biblical times) 'lifted himself up' in his own heart and was in his own eyes and the eyes of his admirers a "shining one", a son of the dawn. Lucifer was retained in the Latin Vulgate because it is merely a translation of the Hebrew word heh.lel', "shining one", which is not a name, but a title describing the boastful position taken by Babylon's dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.
He wasn't possessed, though. Set wasn't involved.Stop referencing films, it just makes you look stupid.
Used films a couple of times to just show how things creep their way into pop culture, although it's NOT accurate, and then people take it as fact. I also quoted bible scriptures, and historical facts - so there was plenty of evidence. Sorry you were offended by the film references.
Also re-address this again ...Lucifer was the name of a Babylonian King, as Roundy said,
NO I said that - see my comments again ...A descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4, 12), based on Satan filling the king of Babylon with ambitions to have complete domination over the earth, even over God. This king (in biblical times) 'lifted himself up' in his own heart and was in his own eyes and the eyes of his admirers a "shining one", a son of the dawn. Lucifer was retained in the Latin Vulgate because it is merely a translation of the Hebrew word heh.lel', "shining one", which is not a name, but a title describing the boastful position taken by Babylon's dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.
Additional comment now added: Also the name of the Babylonian King was NOT Lucifer; he had a name, and "Lucifer" was just a description.
Seeing how GD mentioned the Divine Comedy, I thought I'd mention something interesting: It (especially Inferno) has almost no Biblical relevance. There's nothing in the Bible that talks about circles of hell, what punishment people there get, or anything like that. In fact, I think that Dante's assumption that Lucifer's three heads are chewing on Brutus, Cassius, and Judas is kind of arrogant. The three worst people in the entire world's history were all people who fucked up Italy. Who would have guessed? ::) If I wrote my own version of Inferno, and said that the three people receiving the worst punishment were John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Aldrich Ames, I bet a lot of people would have a probem with that.
Supposedly the seven deadly sins are: gluttony, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and wrath.
Some lists (depending on who you ask) use "vanity" to replace one of the above.
The movie "Seven" or Se7en in 1995 with Kevin Spacey, Pitt, Freeman, and Paltrow, and also "Devil's Avocate" with Pacino, Reeves, and Theron from 1997 talk about these so-called 7 deadly sins.
Response: Myth - These sins are NOT deadly, neither are most of the 10 commandments. In fact there were approx 602 commandments originally in biblical times, that were narrowed down to 10 then 2. The only really deadly sin is - sinning against the Holy Spirit. The bible does talk about those things as being sins, but NO WHERE in the bible does it say the above (listed) are the seven (7) deadly sins.
You forgot the biggest sin of all...
Eating apples to get smart. ;D
Suicide is equally unforgivable, impossible as it is to repent afterwards.
I just want to make mention of one thing...
A sin is to go against God only because he is the one who made the rules. Why does that make him right?
Suicide could be forgiven if you weren't too dead to repent. It's unforgivable for all intents and purposes because of that, not because it's a particularly bad sin.
Of course the Bible says suicide is a sin. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?
Of course the Bible says suicide is a sin. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?
Completely understood, but the last topic was not whether suicide is a sin, but whether it is one of the 7 deadly sins (false anyhow and made up by pop culture) or the "unforgiveable sin". It is neither. I think you're just playin' with me anyhow - got it.
LOL - cute. You must remember that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, and they were created perfect to make their own decisions, and they knew better, but deliberately sinned anyhow, even after coming to know God. Their sin was deadly in the sense that they have no chance of resurrection because they had other gods before God, by believing in Satan, and wanting to know that which they did not need to know, since they had everything they needed already. They trusted Satan, and not God, and they believed in a false god that wanted to challenge God's sovereignty, and they turned away from the One that was the true God who had provided them everything, in order to gain something Satan promised. Not a very good trade off - don't ya think? In addition to the bible's command you shalt have no other gods before me, it also states you cannot slave for 2 masters, (Mt 6:22-24), particularly verse 24, the first part I call A. And another scripture says you cannot partake of the table of God and the table of demons. That's a total of 3 scriptures, but what it breaks down to in this case is that they sinned against the Holy Spirit - the unforgiveable sin. See more on this below with my response to GD.
I wonder why women seem to be the "tempters who doom humanity" and why it's always a man who gives the woman the power to doom humanity?
Seeing how GD mentioned the Divine Comedy, I thought I'd mention something interesting: It (especially Inferno) has almost no Biblical relevance. There's nothing in the Bible that talks about circles of hell, what punishment people there get, or anything like that.
Supposedly the seven deadly sins are: gluttony, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and wrath.
Some lists (depending on who you ask) use "vanity" to replace one of the above.
It's not. 2 separate thoughts.Of course the Bible says suicide is a sin. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?
Completely understood, but the last topic was not whether suicide is a sin, but whether it is one of the 7 deadly sins (false anyhow and made up by pop culture) or the "unforgiveable sin". It is neither. I think you're just playin' with me anyhow - got it.
Where is suicide referred to as one of the 7 Deadly Sins?
Also, no one claims the seven deadly sins are listed in the bible as such.
...that these sins were the worst sins,
The 7 deadly sins - not only in movies, but on the History channel, are not the deadly sins at all. Yes they are sins, and each one addressed in the bible, BUT not deadly - as they are not sins that would keep one from a resurrection. The "unforgiveable sin" perceived as suicide is NOT suicide at all (as the unforgiveable), and it (suicide), along with the topic 7 deadly sins have been in at least 3 posts here this thread. Read back further.
It seems as though most of you are under the impression that the Bible teaches that even if somebody is a Christian their whole life but sins (let's say they insult somebody) and has a heart attack before they have a chance to repent, they will go to hell.
I think what you're not grasping here is that it doesn't matter if it's specifically mentioned in Scripture. It's been part of Catholic dogma for centuries based on later Church leaders' interpretation of Scripture. It was decided that these were the sins, as opposed to the venial sins for which there is less harsh punishment, that prevented one from making it into Heaven unless they are absolved through either Penance or perfect contrition. It's an elaboration on what's stated in the Bible, but so is a lot of accepted Church dogma. It's because they create the threat of eternal damnation that they are called deadly, or mortal, sins. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you; perhaps you're saying that according to the dogma you were raised to accept they are not considered "deadly" sins, and I can believe that. I'm pretty sure it was one of the concepts that was dropped by the Protestant reformers. I'm just not sure you understand that according to the organization that defined Christianity for the first three-quarters of its existence and is still the dominant Christian denomination today, there's nothing fake about the appellation "deadly" for these particular sins.
I think what you're not grasping here is that it doesn't matter if it's specifically mentioned in Scripture. It's been part of Catholic dogma for centuries based on later Church leaders' interpretation of Scripture. It was decided that these were the sins, as opposed to the venial sins for which there is less harsh punishment, that prevented one from making it into Heaven unless they are absolved through either Penance or perfect contrition. It's an elaboration on what's stated in the Bible, but so is a lot of accepted Church dogma. It's because they create the threat of eternal damnation that they are called deadly, or mortal, sins. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you; perhaps you're saying that according to the dogma you were raised to accept they are not considered "deadly" sins, and I can believe that. I'm pretty sure it was one of the concepts that was dropped by the Protestant reformers. I'm just not sure you understand that according to the organization that defined Christianity for the first three-quarters of its existence and is still the dominant Christian denomination today, there's nothing fake about the appellation "deadly" for these particular sins.
Response: It is not that I am not grasping what you are saying for the thread is called "Bible Myths", regardless of which particular religion accepts something as their dogma OR not. If something is accepted by a certain religious group, but is not biblical or scriptural then it IS a biblical myth.
And Roundy I was Catholic for 28 years, before abandoning the religion - I definately understand Catholicism.
And Roundy I was Catholic for 28 years, before abandoning the religion - I definately understand Catholicism.
My mistake, I didn't realize you were brought up Catholic. To be fair, I've known quite a few Catholics, practicing even, who really didn't understand the principles behind their religion.
The "seven deadly sins" isn't a bible myth though. It is an interpretation of the bible, that these sins will lead to damnation. Being permanently separated from god is what they consider deadly.
How does that apply to what I posted? Your entire family didn't come up with the concept of seven deadly sins. Your family's generations of Catholicism has nothing to do with your knowledge on the subject, or any bearing on this discussion.
Also, being Catholic for 28yrs (a good number of those years as a little kid) doesn't make you the forum expert on Catholicism.
You seem to have this mistaken notion that people think the sins are instantly deadly, when that isn't what anyone believes, except possibly the extremely confused or retarded.
I don't think you're bothering to try to comprehend what you are reading.
I watched the History Channel specials on (some of) the seven deadly sins. Not once did they say that people would be instantly damned by committing them, they merely explained the sins, and why they were believed to be so important. Also, I don't know of ANY religion that teaches the idea that these sins will instantly damn a person to hell. As you have said a few times before, the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (whatever that means, perhaps you should start a discussion on that).
What do you think about this explanation? http://www.kencollins.com/bible-d1.htm
Also, I'd love to read your take on the notion of God hardening someone's heart.
The scriptures reference what is unforgiveable as mentioned in 2 places in the bible. The first talks about apostasy in Heb 6:4-6. The 2nd talks about sinners against the spirit will not rise and goes on further to say "not in this system of things nor in that to come." (Mt 12:31, 32)
If you feel remorse for your sins and a desire to change, you are obviously not disconnected from the Holy Spirit; and if you are not disconnected, you cannot possibly have committed the unforgivable sin.
I watched the History Channel specials on (some of) the seven deadly sins. Not once did they say that people would be instantly damned by committing them, they merely explained the sins, and why they were believed to be so important. Also, I don't know of ANY religion that teaches the idea that these sins will instantly damn a person to hell. As you have said a few times before, the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (whatever that means, perhaps you should start a discussion on that).
Also, disagreeing in a debate doesn't mean I'm mad at you, or I'm not your friend anymore. It just means I don't agree with you. That's the whole idea of having these debates. If we all agreed on everything, what would be the point of discussion?
I watched the History Channel specials on (some of) the seven deadly sins. Not once did they say that people would be instantly damned by committing them, they merely explained the sins, and why they were believed to be so important. Also, I don't know of ANY religion that teaches the idea that these sins will instantly damn a person to hell. As you have said a few times before, the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (whatever that means, perhaps you should start a discussion on that).
Also, disagreeing in a debate doesn't mean I'm mad at you, or I'm not your friend anymore. It just means I don't agree with you. That's the whole idea of having these debates. If we all agreed on everything, what would be the point of discussion?
I could be wrong here, but my understanding of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit referred specifically to the religious leaders who said that Jesus and his disciples performed miracles by the power of the devil, the implication being that if your heart had reached the point where even in the face of such overwhelming evidence for the divinity of Christ you still shut him out, you cannot possibly be forgiven.
Suicide is equally unforgivable, impossible as it is to repent afterwards.
Suicide is equally unforgivable, impossible as it is to repent afterwards.
Playing devil's advocate here:
What if a person (very far from any hospitals or clinics) drank a sufficient amount of poison, then (after enough damage had been done to assure his/her death) this person had a change of heart and repented? Does the Judeo-Christian god forgive the person?
I would say that, yes, you can be forgiven for suicide if you repent before you die... so it's probably better to jump from a tall building than to eat a bullet!
I would say that, yes, you can be forgiven for suicide if you repent before you die... so it's probably better to jump from a tall building than to eat a bullet!
I would say that when we accept God's grace all of our sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. The issue here is how somebody who had received forgiveness from God could ever feel compelled to take his or her own life.
Mental illness.
1) I disagree with your interpretation of this verse because it would seem to run contrary to much of what we read throughout John's writings. The only version I've found that upholds the idea of being "blotted out" is from the NIV from fifty years ago, but newer versions of the NIV agree with the KJV and seem to have fixed it to say "not found written in the book of life", or something to that extent. The idea of being "blotted out" does not appear in any other versions I've read, and I'm not just talking about English translations.
2) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24. According to your interpretation of Matthew 24:13, it would seem to contradict what we read in John. The only conclusion we can draw is that one is wrong and the other is correct, or they were both referring to salvation that cannot be taken away. Matthew's quote does not conflict with the idea of the perseverance of the saints.
Judas Iscariot is a poor example and we can see in scripture that he never grasped the true mission of Jesus Christ. He never turned from grace because he never received it in the first place.
Points 3 and 4 deal with the Old Covenant, ...Response to your response of my use of #3 and 4:
1) I disagree with your interpretation of this verse because it would seem to run contrary to much of what we read throughout John's writings. The only version I've found that upholds the idea of being "blotted out" is from the NIV from fifty years ago, but newer versions of the NIV agree with the KJV and seem to have fixed it to say "not found written in the book of life", or something to that extent. The idea of being "blotted out" does not appear in any other versions I've read, and I'm not just talking about English translations.
Response to #1 (A&B):
A) You were too quick to jump - I stated "2" different ways the scripture was written, using 2 different bible translations. I never said it was written only one way, and that was not the point anyhow. It really does not matter which one you have in your version - the meaning is the same.
B) You say you do not agree with my interpretation, but the bible does not say interpret as YOU see fit; for there is no private interpretation of the scriptures says 2Peter 1:20 &21.
2) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24. According to your interpretation of Matthew 24:13, it would seem to contradict what we read in John. The only conclusion we can draw is that one is wrong and the other is correct, or they were both referring to salvation that cannot be taken away. Matthew's quote does not conflict with the idea of the perseverance of the saints.
Response to #2 (A - D):
A) There is no disagreement or lack of continuity of the scriptures amongst the gospels, and you as a servant of God should know that.
B) You cannot use parts of the bible without considering the bible as a whole, for by themselves they are parts, but it is the sum of those parts that makes the whole.
C) There are 2 different issues on the board - those they come to know God, believe in the teachings of Jesus and know what is right, but turn away - "apostates" or apostasy AND those that do not even come to truly know God. The latter goes with the Judas remark you made, although erroneous >>...
Judas Iscariot is a poor example and we can see in scripture that he never grasped the true mission of Jesus Christ. He never turned from grace because he never received it in the first place.
Above quote ^Not true, for 3 reasons: a) he knew right, but turned away as evidenced by committing suicide, by trying to hang himself. b) Also Judas would not have been hand picked, if Jesus didn't see something in Judas that appealed to Him. He later turned away. c) (See D for apostasy)
D) Apostasy and apostates - many scriptures explain what it is, how it happens, and in some cases who did it. It also explains how one can know the faith and everything that goes with it and still "fall away from the faith" 1 Ti 4:1. Other scriptures on apostasy and apostates are:
- 2Th 2:3
- Pr 11:9
- Is 32:6
- Job 13:16
- He 6:4-6 - is a real good one.
[/quote]Points 3 and 4 deal with the Old Covenant, ...Response to your response of my use of #3 and 4:
Since you are relating this to the "Old Covenant", I suppose you are speaking of the old "Mosaic Law", or sometimes just called "The Law," or "Law Covenant." Actually in addition to commandments - hundreds initially (approx 602), there was more than one covenant, as well. The only one that seems to fit, based on your response, is the "Law Covenant." My points number 3 and 4 are not related to the Law covenant at all, so your response does not fit properly. The Old Testament called Hebrew scriptures, is not entirely and only about the Old Mosaic Law or Law Covenant, then abolished by a new covenant. NO - it only represents a small portion of the OT. The scriptures I quoted were from Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes - WAY AFTER the Law Covenant.
Saints, we will have to discuss that later, for I'm trying to get something cooked in case I lose power due to a storm. We can discuss this later if you are here later.
And a small request, would you mind choosing another color to make points other than the maroon or dark brown I use - it's kinda confusing as to who said what. Thanks in advance.
Hope to see ya later.
Response to #1 (A&B):
A) You were too quick to jump - I stated "2" different ways the scripture was written, using 2 different bible translations. I never said it was written only one way, and that was not the point anyhow. It really does not matter which one you have in your version - the meaning is the same.
The meaning is not the same. Being "blotted out" is completely different from "not being found written". One implies that God saw your name in the book of life and removed it because you decided you didn't want to be a Christian anymore. The other says that your name never appears in the book in the first place because you never received God's grace.
D) Apostasy and apostates - many scriptures explain what it is, how it happens, and in some cases who did it. It also explains how one can know the faith and everything that goes with it and still "fall away from the faith" 1 Ti 4:1. Other scriptures on apostasy and apostates are:
- 2Th 2:3
- Pr 11:9
- Is 32:6
- Job 13:16
- He 6:4-6 - is a real good one.
Of the verses you listed, only 2 Thessalonians and Hebrews deal with Christian Apostasy.
As for your verses from Hebrews, I'm going to quote something I read on reformationtheology.com:
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/05/hebrews_649_revisited.php
"Likewise, Hebrews 6 says that whoever satisfies the listed conditions and then withdraws from the faith cannot repent again. Since this is what it says, then this is what it means. Now, we can argue about whether these conditions completely define a believer. We could argue from the example of Judas, who exercised the very powers of the world to come, but Jesus knew from the beginning that he was "a devil." He was never truly converted. However, even this discussion is unnecessary, since it is irrelevant to the main point of the passage. Even if it describes a believer, does a believer actually withdraw? Does it ever happen? The passage does not say. The only mention of this topic points toward the other direction: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case — things that accompany salvation" (v. 9). The writer was convinced that at least the original readers would not suffer the fate that he describes. What is it then? The passage cannot be used to support Arminianism, since even the relevance is absent."
This is why Calvin and the other reformers referred to it as the "perpetually reforming Church", always fixing itself and reorienting itself towards the Lord when it goes off the tracks.Sometimes people think that more revisions, OR a better translation is necessary, when in actuality it is not. No one needs to reinvent the wheel, and besides who or what gives someone the right to re-write words that are Holy. Because of this, I use several bibles to see how words have changed over the years, added, or deleted. I suppose that is human nature, but the words as they were written were the best to begin with in the first place.
Response to your response of my use of #3 and 4:YOUR RESPONSE:
Since you are relating this to the "Old Covenant", I suppose you are speaking of the old "Mosaic Law", or sometimes just called "The Law," or "Law Covenant." Actually in addition to commandments - hundreds initially (approx 602), there was more than one covenant, as well. The only one that seems to fit, based on your response, is the "Law Covenant." My points number 3 and 4 are not related to the Law covenant at all, so your response does not fit properly. The Old Testament called Hebrew scriptures, is not entirely and only about the Old Mosaic Law or Law Covenant, then abolished by a new covenant. NO - it only represents a small portion of the OT. The scriptures I quoted were from Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes - WAY AFTER the Law Covenant.
When I refer to the Old Covenant, I refer to the means by which those who existed before the first coming of Christ came into God's grace. The Jews were justified by the law,
Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes were written before Christ came; you seem to believe that the Old Covenant ended centuries before his ministry and sacrifice.
Babsinva, what denominational tradition do you come from?
Babsinva, what denominational tradition do you come from?
Nice way to sidestep the conversation.
You already asked me before in a private message /IM about my religion and I answered you then. This is not about my religion, but instead questions and answers and commentary in a blog forum by several contributors.
But the info listed in my previous post is not in some secret chamber of my bible, for it IS listed in your Christian Holy Bible as well, including all the covenants I mentioned.
So let's get back on topic.
Babsinva, what denominational tradition do you come from?
Nice way to sidestep the conversation.
You already asked me before in a private message /IM about my religion and I answered you then. This is not about my religion, but instead questions and answers and commentary in a blog forum by several contributors.
But the info listed in my previous post is not in some secret chamber of my bible, for it IS listed in your Christian Holy Bible as well, including all the covenants I mentioned.
So let's get back on topic.
You never answered me in the PM. And yes, it is relevant to this discussion as many of the ideas you have presented run contrary to Christian Orthodoxy. Most of my replies have either gone unanswered or are shifted away from the discussion at hand while you try to insult my Biblical literacy.
I'll reply to your last post later, but in the meantime would you care to tell me (as I have asked you a few times already) how you reconcile the passage from John about the perseverance of the saints with your interpretations of the passages from Matthew and Revelation.
When you asked me before about my religion, I explained that I was not baptized under any religion, except as a Catholic years ago, but that I abandoned that religion, and have since studied approx 10, 12 or maybe 15 religions. But that is not important, let's get back on topic.
I am Christian. It may run contrary to your Christian religion, but it is still a Christian religion. My religion does not have to match up exactly with yours in order to be Christian. There are well over 200 Christian denominations if you include all their sisters religions and spin-offs.
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
So you consider Catholicism to be the one true religion?
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
So you consider Catholicism to be the one true religion?
Christianity is the one true religion of which Catholics are a part. There are many things I disagree with about the practices and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church but at their core the fundamentals of the faith are still there. The same is true for the Eastern Orthodox churches. Our beliefs as Christians can best be summed up by the Apostles' Creed.
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
So you consider Catholicism to be the one true religion?
Christianity is the one true religion of which Catholics are a part. There are many things I disagree with about the practices and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church but at their core the fundamentals of the faith are still there. The same is true for the Eastern Orthodox churches. Our beliefs as Christians can best be summed up by the Apostles' Creed.
Where does the Apostles' Creed appear in the Bible?
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
So you consider Catholicism to be the one true religion?
Christianity is the one true religion of which Catholics are a part. There are many things I disagree with about the practices and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church but at their core the fundamentals of the faith are still there. The same is true for the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Our beliefs as Christians can best be summed up by the Apostles' Creed.
Where does the Apostles' Creed appear in the Bible?
It doesn't appear in one place, but you already know this. The Creed itself is a summation of the fundamental tenets of Christianity we read throughout the Bible.
And I'm curious as to why Canadark chose the Apostle's over the Nicene Creed. But not that curious, just mildly curious. :)
And I'm curious as to why Canadark chose the Apostle's over the Nicene Creed. But not that curious, just mildly curious. :)
I doubt that God is pedantic enough to bother with all these petty differences between Christian denominations
And I'm curious as to why Canadark chose the Apostle's over the Nicene Creed. But not that curious, just mildly curious. :)
I am curious as to what Jesus did while he was hanging out in hell for three days :)
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
So you consider Catholicism to be the one true religion?
Christianity is the one true religion of which Catholics are a part. There are many things I disagree with about the practices and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church but at their core the fundamentals of the faith are still there. The same is true for the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Then you already agreed there are sister religions, and spin-offs if you now say that. You may not agree with all sister-religions as being sister religions, but you even said Catholics are part of Christianity and that although you do not believe in Catholicism, the core beliefs are the same. Then that means you DO believe in sister-relgions, such as: Catholicism, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, other Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopalian are all spin-offs from each other, as well as many other religions I did not name.
Our beliefs as Christians can best be summed up by the Apostles' Creed.
Where does the Apostles' Creed appear in the Bible?
It doesn't appear in one place, but you already know this. The Creed itself is a summation of the fundamental tenets of Christianity we read throughout the Bible.
I'm with Roundy - the Apostles Creed does not show anywhere in the bible, not even a Catholic Bible, or Canadark's bible, and although Canadark agrees and admits that, then #1) again you believe in sister-religions, and #2) you don't agree with some of Catholic dogma, but you guys make your own, yet you attack me and say I'm not Christian, but I don't HAVE dogma, and that's a good thing.
Canadark, you attacked me, but don't realize how silly this all sounds, until it was pointed out. Good work Roundy. More importantly I have answered you 3 times - I do not have a professed religion at all, other than Christian, and I have said that, and can not be any clearer. This is why the thread is called bible myths, because I don't adhere to dogma, mantra, bylaws, or creeds. My religion is Christian, and the thread is about Christianity, so I am not off-base, but you asking me over and over my religion IS off-base and not relevant.
You still have NOT addressed my post other than to redundantly ask what is my religion. Either you are creating a stall tactic, or either you are trying to create a diversion. It sounds all too familiar like CR90's dodging of questions when people ask him. If you don't know that's fine, most people aren't going to judge you for not knowing an answer, but they may judge you for dodging it. If you don't know, I would rather you be honest and say, .... I don't know, but I'll ask someone else in my congregation or parish and get back to you, or perhaps truthfully say, I'm not familiar with that, but do not dodge, and dodge, and dodge.
Response to #1 (A&B):
A) You were too quick to jump - I stated "2" different ways the scripture was written, using 2 different bible translations. I never said it was written only one way, and that was not the point anyhow. It really does not matter which one you have in your version - the meaning is the same.
The meaning is not the same. Being "blotted out" is completely different from "not being found written". One implies that God saw your name in the book of life and removed it because you decided you didn't want to be a Christian anymore. The other says that your name never appears in the book in the first place because you never received God's grace.
New response: The meaning is the same - 2 different bibles - 2 different translations, but EXACT same place at Revelation 20:15. I have at least 4 -5 additional bibles that all list it in the same place, but varying with words from "blotted out", to "not found, or "not written."D) Apostasy and apostates - many scriptures explain what it is, how it happens, and in some cases who did it. It also explains how one can know the faith and everything that goes with it and still "fall away from the faith" 1 Ti 4:1. Other scriptures on apostasy and apostates are:
- 2Th 2:3
- Pr 11:9
- Is 32:6
- Job 13:16
- He 6:4-6 - is a real good one.
Of the verses you listed, only 2 Thessalonians and Hebrews deal with Christian Apostasy.
New response: True and also 1st Timothy 4:1. The books of Proverbs, Isaiah, and Job still refer to apostasy, but not Christian apostasy, because there were no Christians yet, for there had been no coming of Christ at that time. I never said or implied they all related to "Christian" apostasy. With that being said, the nation of Israel or Israelites (or Jews) were God's people before the Christ came, and He protected His people as HIS people. Everyone at that time was either a Jew or Gentile (non-Jew), but there were NO Christians - not then, however they were still God's people, and yes even they had apostasy set in among their own God-protected nation. So there has been apostasy for much longer than the days Jesus Christ lived on the earth, and since his death as well, and it will continue.
As for your verses from Hebrews, I'm going to quote something I read on reformationtheology.com:
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/05/hebrews_649_revisited.php
"Likewise, Hebrews 6 says that whoever satisfies the listed conditions and then withdraws from the faith cannot repent again. Since this is what it says, then this is what it means. Now, we can argue about whether these conditions completely define a believer. We could argue from the example of Judas, who exercised the very powers of the world to come, but Jesus knew from the beginning that he was "a devil." He was never truly converted. However, even this discussion is unnecessary, since it is irrelevant to the main point of the passage. Even if it describes a believer, does a believer actually withdraw? Does it ever happen? The passage does not say. The only mention of this topic points toward the other direction: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case — things that accompany salvation" (v. 9). The writer was convinced that at least the original readers would not suffer the fate that he describes. What is it then? The passage cannot be used to support Arminianism, since even the relevance is absent."
New response: First of all I am not an Arminian, and 2nd the website you cited also lists quotes from a bible first, before giving his/her own interpretation, ... " who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come..." .
I like to use the actual words of the bible such as that above, which are very clear, and I use that 1st and foremost over websites. However, I did like the website SCG cited because it was spot-on in most instances, and would accept her cite of Ken Collins before I accepted the one you listed. Tomato, Tomata - whatever works for you, but the bible is the most accurate in any case, at least to me. As you said ... >
This is why Calvin and the other reformers referred to it as the "perpetually reforming Church", always fixing itself and reorienting itself towards the Lord when it goes off the tracks.Sometimes people think that more revisions, OR a better translation is necessary, when in actuality it is not. No one needs to reinvent the wheel, and besides who or what gives someone the right to re-write words that are Holy. Because of this, I use several bibles to see how words have changed over the years, added, or deleted. I suppose that is human nature, but the words as they were written were the best to begin with in the first place.
Response to your response of my use of #3 and 4:YOUR RESPONSE:
Since you are relating this to the "Old Covenant", I suppose you are speaking of the old "Mosaic Law", or sometimes just called "The Law," or "Law Covenant." Actually in addition to commandments - hundreds initially (approx 602), there was more than one covenant, as well. The only one that seems to fit, based on your response, is the "Law Covenant." My points number 3 and 4 are not related to the Law covenant at all, so your response does not fit properly. The Old Testament called Hebrew scriptures, is not entirely and only about the Old Mosaic Law or Law Covenant, then abolished by a new covenant. NO - it only represents a small portion of the OT. The scriptures I quoted were from Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes - WAY AFTER the Law Covenant.When I refer to the Old Covenant, I refer to the means by which those who existed before the first coming of Christ came into God's grace. The Jews were justified by the law,Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes were written before Christ came; you seem to believe that the Old Covenant ended centuries before his ministry and sacrifice.
New response to last 2 quotes ^^: Either you are misinterpreting what I have said, or either you are not familiar with the term. Let me be more clear. The Mosaic Law known as the Law Covenant is but a short piece in the OT, mostly the 1st 5 books of the bible, yet Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes were written after the Law Covenant was established, and those later laws and covenants, were not done away with when Jesus died for our sins. And NO "The Law Covenant" did not end before his ministry and sacrifice, but were still in existence until 33 A.D. or as some call it C.E. But it was the Law Covenant and the Law Covenant only that ended, and all other things written about were to be followed, exercised, and still used. Most covenants had already been made, by the time Jesus came.
There were many other covenants, but the one you described (as Old Covenant) fit the category I previously mentioned, which was the "Law Covenant." Here are some of the other covenants, the main ones listed here:
Covenant with Noah
Rainbow Covenant
Covenant with Abraham
Covenant of Circumcision
Covenant with the Tribe of Levi
Covenant with Israel at Moab
Covenant with King David
Covenant to be a Priest Like Melchizedek
& Covenant with His Followers
See ya soon; I'll look for you.
And no, I don't consider "sister religions and spin-offs" to fall into the same category as Orthodox Christianity.
So you consider Catholicism to be the one true religion?
Christianity is the one true religion of which Catholics are a part. There are many things I disagree with about the practices and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church but at their core the fundamentals of the faith are still there. The same is true for the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Then you already agreed there are sister religions, and spin-offs if you now say that. You may not agree with all sister-religions as being sister religions, but you even said Catholics are part of Christianity and that although you do not believe in Catholicism, the core beliefs are the same. Then that means you DO believe in sister-relgions, such as: Catholicism, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, other Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopalian are all spin-offs from each other, as well as many other religions I did not name.
The point being that if they believe in the one true gospel, then they are not "sister religions" but a part of the one true religion. That is, Christianity.
Again, I interpreted "sister religion or spin-off" to mean a religion that doesn't believe in the true gospel of Jesus Christ, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the Jehovah's Witnesses, but thank you for reminding me that denominations exist.
And I'm curious as to why Canadark chose the Apostle's over the Nicene Creed. But not that curious, just mildly curious. :)
You did not make it clear what denomination you came from, all you kept telling me was that you study all sorts of different religions. Now I see that you don't associate with any specific denomination, but it is simply wrong to say that you don't adhere to any specific dogma, mantra, or creed.
I doubt that God is pedantic enough to bother with all these petty differences between Christian denominations
Confession to a priest:
Answer: Myth - This is still done today, but should not be. Priests and their parishioners believe that if you confess your sins to a priest, he will then give you some prayers to say when you leave, (like 2 Our Father's and 3 Hail Mary's) and the priest will take those sins to god, since he is a direct link to god, and your sins will be absolved.
Reason: No recited prayers of "Hail Mary's", "Our Father's", "Glory Be's" or anything else will absolve your sins, neither will telling a man about it. A) The bible talks about vain repetition and the use of many words over and over for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. (see Mt 6:7) B) No priest or any man is a direct link to God, for there is only one mediator between God and us. (See 1Ti 2:5) C) The scriptures also say I confessed to you (meaning God), and it continues with ... confession over my transgressions to God, and you yourself pardoned my sin. (See Psalms 32:5)
Baptism:
but know that it is not done properly NOR is it done for the reason people think. And priests are not the only ones who get this wrong, for many religions teach baptism incorrectly.
I just want to make mention of one thing...
A sin is to go against God only because he is the one who made the rules. Why does that make him right?
I just want to make mention of one thing...
A sin is to go against God only because he is the one who made the rules. Why does that make him right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)
"Is the pious (?? ?????) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" - Plato
If philosophy has nothing to do with religion, then what was St. Thomas Aquinus up to?
I know about them, but the two studies are very separate.
Philosophers don't know much about religion, and theologians may possibly know about philosophy but do not always make it part of their teachings.
Ahh, I get it now. You simply are lacking in the facility of thinking about what you read. Which is strange, because as a biblical literalist, with your specific interpretations of scripture, involves at least a modicum of thinking.
I think Wilmore you got your quotes mixed up by mistake in reference to these last two, for I said the 1st and you said the 2nd. See below.I know about them, but the two studies are very separate.
Actually, even from a purely historical point of view, there is massive cross-over between the two. You cannot separate the history of Christianity from that of philosophy. Secondly, if philosophers, theologians and regular Joe Bloggs Christians are asking the same questions, surely it makes sense in some instances to compare answers?Philosophers don't know much about religion, and theologians may possibly know about philosophy but do not always make it part of their teachings.Finally, both of these statements are simply not true. Even a cursory glance at the history of western philosophy would reveal how concerned many philosophers were with religion. Likewise, in the formative years of the Christian church, Greek philosophy heavily influenced the doctrine and thought of the church. To argue otherwise is, frankly, somewhat absurd.
*Fixed
Philosophers don't know much about religion, and theologians may possibly know about philosophy but do not always make it part of their teachings.
Finally, both of these statements are simply not true. Even a cursory glance at the history of western philosophy would reveal how concerned many philosophers were with religion. Likewise, in the formative years of the Christian church, Greek philosophy heavily influenced the doctrine and thought of the church. To argue otherwise is, frankly, somewhat absurd.
Many say the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT, and that the old God ruled wrongly and was mean, but then this nice guy Jesus came along and everything was different. Many think the God of the OT (or Hebrew scriptures) was a committed barbarian who favored bandits and such terrorists as Israel's King David. For some Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.
What do you think and why?
This thread is the only place I've ever read that "myth". IMO, babs creates these myths so he can expound on them.
Certainly the God that Jesus worshiped was the God of the OT. He wouldn't have been constantly quoting Scripture otherwise. Given that fact, I can only imagine that any Christians who would hold such a view are guilty of either intellectual dishonesty or outright ignorance.
I'd love to see references to this as a legitimate topic of discussion so I can get a better idea of what people with that opinion might be thinking.
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT. Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT. For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you.
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT. Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT. For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you.
Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism. In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now. The Mandaeans (another crossover from Marcionism) still exist in some parts of Iraq. And Gnosticism has showed some resurgence.
Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism. In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.
All these "Bible myths" are fun. When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?
All these "Bible myths" are fun. When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?
Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.
According to the Wikipedia link you posted there aren't "many" who say that the god of the OT is different from the god of the NT. Marcionism died out in the 5th century with only a few Christians left who only follow the NT and reject the OT. For these people this isn't a myth, just as your beliefs aren't myth to you.
Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism. In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now. The Mandaeans (another crossover from Marcionism) still exist in some parts of Iraq. And Gnosticism has showed some resurgence.
1) I've never seen it presented as a central tenet of Calvinism that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different beings, in any way, shape, or form. Again, maybe you could point me in the right direction.
2) According to what I read about Mandaeism, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Bible; according to its wikipedia page it has its own corpus of scriptures and borrowed from a wide variety of religions, Christianity being only one. In fact, also according to their wikipedia page, they view Jesus as a false prophet.
3) Gnosticism appears to be a legitimate case of a real group of people who actually consider the God of the OT and the God of the NT to be different beings. I criticize its being mentioned only on the basis that saying there are still Gnostics left in the world is like saying there are still Flat Earthers left in the world; that is, there are very, very few (it's practically a dead discipline) and they're not taken the least seriously by anyone but themselves and each other. And I'm not sure you can support that there are still Gnostics left who consider the two Gods to not be the same being. According to what I've found the movement itself had a great deal conflicting or opposing viewpoints within its members. Not unlike Christianity itself, I suppose.
This would appear to be why neither Space Cowgirl nor myself have ever heard of anyone having this view; Gnosticism is a fringe movement that (according to one of your own sources) is actually condemned as a system of thought in the New Testament itself; as I've already pointed out it's not a view that's in any way supported by the Bible (and in fact seems to contradict the Bible). I guess that's why you refer to it as a myth, though.
All these "Bible myths" are fun. When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?
It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments. It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.
Gnosticism is a fringe movement that (according to one of your own sources) is actually condemned as a system of thought in the New Testament itself; as I've already pointed out it's not a view that's in any way supported by the Bible (and in fact seems to contradict the Bible).
All these "Bible myths" are fun. When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?
Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.
Sure they are.
Agreed for the most part - but there are cross-overs from Marcionism into religions still surviving today like Calvinism. In some parts of the world Calvinism only died out as recent as the 1970's, but in other places of the world they still exist, although they are smaller in numbers now.
This is not true in the least bit. Not only do Calvinists believe wholeheartedly in God's eternal nature, but I would go so far as to say that the majority of practicing protestants, myself included, lean strongly towards the central principles Calvinism (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints).
All these "Bible myths" are fun. When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?
Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.
Sure they are.
A) I did not say all these religions are of Christian faith.
That last statement is funny my man.
Some may not call their work a Holy Bible, but may call it a Bible or a Holy Book. Either way this is how myths get started. See how the bible myths fit into this topic?
I said some of the stuff crosses over - not all of it. Some believe that the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT (2 Gods - 1 being good, and 1 being bad), and yet some believe that the God of the OT was cruel, but somehow changed his mind and has now become a loving God in the NT. And still others believe the first God was a Demiurge. And some others say let's not teach the OT at all, but only the loving teachings of Jesus, for the OT is outdated and just shows tyranny. Others proceeded to re-write their own book to reflect only the parts they want to keep, or some scratched or scrapped the whole thing and made up stuff. Anyway you look at it - it shows that some religions with SOME commonality do not like the OT God.
Roundy even you said this ...>>It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments. It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.
So aside from the religions I previously mentioned, you have agreed in some fashion that it still persists in Christianity today.
All these "Bible myths" are fun. When are we going to get to the myth of the 72 virgins, or of Jesus' ministry among the Native Americans?
Just throwing this out there, but neither of those ideas are supported by scripture.
Sure they are.
Where?
A) I did not say all these religions are of Christian faith.Yet you refer to these as Bible myths.
That last statement is funny my man.Why? They are as legitimately Bible myths as your "two Gods in the Bible" myth:
you need to broaden your scope; there's so much to consider, if you're looking at every religion that share aspects in common with Christianity. But then we're not talking about myths specifically concerned with the Christian Bible, we're really talking about comparative religion.
Roundy even you said this ...>>It's certainly one of the major criticisms of Christianity that God underwent such a radical change between the Testaments. It's a bit paradoxical that an all-knowing, all-powerful, Alpha-and-Omega deity would undergo such a massive change in personality.
So aside from the religions I previously mentioned, you have agreed in some fashion that it still persists in Christianity today.
I don't see how you get that from that statement.It sounds like you were agreeing that some do see God as Barbaric – so yes because you said that – I thought it was relevant.
You seem to not even see that the beliefs of others are equally worthy of respect
You think that someone saying God was barbaric and cruel in the OT and then all sweetness and light in the NT proves that people believe they were different beings, when that just isn't the case. What we're actually saying is that the nature (the behavior) of your god changed drastically, not that there are two separate gods. It is true that there are a scant few out there who do believe there are separate gods in the Christian bible, but they are extremely few and far between these days. I don't really see how you can deny that the nature of God changed from the OT to the NT. In the OT he was smiting people on a regular basis, in the NT it was peace and love.
Again as said before, I was just showing that sometimes things cross-over INTO Christianity. In was not the purpose of the whole thread to discuss non-Christian faiths totally, but to show how they have made an impact on Christianity.Sorry don't have time to do the quotes right, but you know what I meant.
Well, that isn't what babs is saying either. He's saying many people believe that there are two different gods in the bible. The god of the OT and the god of the NT. Some of those people think the god of the OT was actually the devil.
Mattew 15:11 Jesus states, after an altercation with some pharisees regarding hygene, that whatever goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, only what comes out (words). He appears in this chapter to call the pharisees hypocrites for not honoring another of the old laws, namely stoning disobedient children, which given what he states in verse 11 he seems to condone that act (since disobedient children would count as something coming out of the mouth, not going in).
My question to Christians, do you agree with Jesus here that disobedient children should be stoned? Just FYI, stoning historically was to the death, so in other words, he is condoning killing disobedient children in my mind.
I know I have brought up these verses before pointing out that Jesus was condoning that act, however I never really got a response regarding what Jesus appears to be condoning here.
The problem here is that you are interpreting this verse to mean that Jesus condoned the stoning of sinners which we all know he did not (on a side note the verse actually states "Anyone who curses"; this has nothing to do with a child disobeying his parents). He was using the verse against the Pharisees in order to to illustrate a flaw with their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Pharisees said that somebody could withhold giving honour to their parents if they wanted to give that honour to God instead, something that Jesus was calling them out on.
So in other words, no, he does not condone stoning children, he doesn't condone stoning people who curse their parents either. To interpret the verse like that is to miss the point of what Jesus is trying to do here.
That's close, but consider this >>
Since the Mosaic Law was still in effect during Jesus' time (until his death in 33 A.D.) the law was still supposed to be obeyed, however the Pharisees and scribes were not obeying the Mosaic Law or even trying to, for they stood on tradition of men of former times. Key word is "tradition". It was the tradition of some to wash their hands and part of their arms - UP to the elbow, which is why the Pharisees asked why Jesus' disciples overstep the tradition and eat with defiled hands. It was not that they had not washed at all, it's just that the Pharisees thought Jesus' disciples were not clean or properly washed for eating, and that defiled them, yet His people were not defiled and did not stand on tradition. These Pharisees did not do this simply for hygiene purposes, but for ceremonial purposes. They were so quick to attack Jesus and his disciples, and wrongly so, but the Pharisees would not obey the commandments and for that they were wrong, and Jesus pointed that out. (See Mark 7:1-8) The first 5 verses talk about washing up to the elbow and 4 -5 other traditions that the Pharisees had. Verse 6 states Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, honoring me with your lips, but your hearts are far removed from me. In verse 7 Jesus says it is in vain that they keep worshipping me because they teach as doctrines commands of men. Culminating in verse 8 with, letting go the commandment of God, you hold fast to the tradition of men.
Then in Matthew 15:1-20, it starts by backing up the account in Mark, but goes into further detail. Verse 11 states "Not what enters into his mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of his mouth that defiles a man." Then Jesus' disciples asked for clarification, for which Jesus replied in verse 17 and 18. "Are you not aware that everything entering into the mouth passes along into the intestines and is discharged into the sewer? However, the things proceeding out of the mouth come out of the heart and those things defile a man."
B-T-W in verse 4, Jesus does state that God has said that one who reviles (some bibles say curse) his father or mother was to end up in death. This too was something the Pharisees did not practice, as commanded, but they pretended they were following the laws, but all the while criticizing Jesus and his followers. That is why Jesus had called them hypocrites, and pointed out them not following verse 4, with His response in verse 5 & 6 stating they do not follow it, but ignore it. Striking or reviling a parent was considered a serious crime under the Mosaic Law; see Exodus 21:15, 17. And yes people were stoned under the Mosaic Law commanded to HIS nation of Israel. Also see De 13:10; 21:22 & 23.
Both of you were somewhat right. But keep in mind - this is not just in my bible - it's in yours.
Jesus explained that what comes out of the mouth defiles a man because it comes from the heart. I take this as meaning that any particular mosaic law that involves this type of defilement should be upheld, but those laws that involves merely things going into the mouth should not. That is why I came to the conclusion he was condoning the act of stoning children that curseth their parents.
Question: "What are Christian saints according to the Bible?"
Answer: The word saint comes from the Greek word "hagios" which means ?consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in the plural, ?saints.? "?Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons ? ?(Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use and that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural ?saints? compared to only one use of the singular word ?saint.? Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view ??every saint?? (Philippians 4:21).
The idea of the word ?saint? is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly character of saints; "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).
Therefore, Scripturally speaking, the ?saints? are the body of Christ, Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saints. 1 Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly, ?To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy?? The words ?sanctified? and ?holy? come from the same Greek root as the word that is commonly translated ?saints.? Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely match their position in Christ. This is the Biblical description and calling of the saints.
How does the Roman Catholic understanding of ?saints? compare with the Biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in Heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is ?beatified? or ?canonized? by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.
What do you think of this explanation of Saints?
http://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.htmlQuoteQuestion: "What are Christian saints according to the Bible?"
Answer: The word saint comes from the Greek word "hagios" which means ?consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in the plural, ?saints.? "?Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons ? ?(Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use and that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural ?saints? compared to only one use of the singular word ?saint.? Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view ??every saint?? (Philippians 4:21).
The idea of the word ?saint? is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly character of saints; "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).
Therefore, Scripturally speaking, the ?saints? are the body of Christ, Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saints. 1 Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly, ?To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy?? The words ?sanctified? and ?holy? come from the same Greek root as the word that is commonly translated ?saints.? Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely match their position in Christ. This is the Biblical description and calling of the saints.
QuoteHow does the Roman Catholic understanding of ?saints? compare with the Biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in Heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is ?beatified? or ?canonized? by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.
Perseverance of the Saints FTW.And yet you still believe? You were so lovely a few weeks ago, when you accused me of heresy.
http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-saints/patron-saints-professions.htm
I agree with Babs here, and his position is representative of the prevailing view among Protestants. All believers are saints and are part of the Christian priesthood. We are all equally entitled to access to God and to perform Christian rites and ceremonies (such as baptism and communion).
I agree with Babs here, and his position is representative of the prevailing view among Protestants. All believers are saints and are part of the Christian priesthood. We are all equally entitled to access to God and to perform Christian rites and ceremonies (such as baptism and communion).
fix'd
revelation 21:8 and Hebrews 13:4 .... best verses in the BIBLE. Oh and John 3:36. The end is always approaching for ALL of us .................
run and go look those up sluggards : )
Yes. Protestants take issue with using it as a title or classification because we consider all believers to be saints.
Yeah, I know that, I was raised Protestant. I was asking about Catholics. They seem to worry about beautifying a person quite a lot. I think they wait so long to name someone a saint to make sure any scandal the person might have been involved in would be long forgotten.Funny SCG !
Saints are like God's customer service representatives. If you lose your wallet or your shoe, you can just pray to Saint Antony. Finding lost things is all he does ... for eternity.Now I saw that ^^ and laughed, but it's kinda true - as it relates to Catholics take on it. Of course, they don't see it that way, but consider one of my earlier posts where I mention the patron saint of skating. (explained more below)