Leaderboard

Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demonstrate wisdom when you can have it conferred upon you by decree? Don't you see? Declaring that the foolishness of God is wiser than men innocculates you from the need to answer for the foolishness of your position? It goes like this: In order for us to have redemption, blood needs to be shed. Because that was the standard God set up. Because he did. No, he could not have set up any other standard, because that would not have been just. Why? Buh...buh...buh...buhcause! Why could God, who is Almighty, not set up a system of redemption that does not require bloodshed? I mean, I've got one at home with my kids. Not once have I had to execute a pet in order to atone for my sons being brats. And I certainly have never even considered killing one of my sons to atone for another's infractions! It makes no sense that an Almighty God should be unable to craft a less bloodthirsty method for redemption unless that God were SUBJECT to the principles of justice rather than being their AUTHOR. He who said that if a man sheds blood, by man his blood will be shed could just as easily have said if a man sheds blood he will serve an appropriate prison sentence, providing a service to the state that will be paid not to him but to the family of the person whose blood he shed. And it WOULD be just by virtue of His being the author of it, for He is the author, not the subject, of justice. RIGHT? Jesus never would have had to die. No one would. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men" absolves you of any need to even consider the validity of what I've just laid out. It is not a comeback, it is a dismissal, a self-affirming declaration of humility, intelligence, meekness and thoughtful reflection that is, in reality, none of those things.

The book of Revelation was often written in vague figurative and symbolic language which makes it more challenging for people to understand its content. I think the reason for this is because at this time of authorship the disciples and especially the apostles of Jesus Christ were getting persecuted and sometimes even murdered by the Roman Empire Beast of the 1st century. This was with the help of the bias and hateful religious beast or beasts, who were looking to gain religious power, while NOT being service oriented to humanity. It looks to me like this vaguely written book of Revelation wording in some chapters speaks of defeating the beasts. Whether they are political, religious or spiritual. Part of this defeating of the beasts is putting the spiritual beasts or demons referred to with symbolic language in a garbage dump (my own figurative language), while lessening their deception. Some of this may have been in past ages, centuries or years. Chapter 20 of the book of Revelation is obviously in the future because today we still have the deception of the God of this world. Rev 20:1-3 20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. NIV With Revelation chapters 20 to 22, which is in the future, it is less challenging for me to read and can be read now. I understand at least some of it. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20-22&version=NIV

Sounds marginally better than the Way. If I was leaving the Way right now and had to choose where to go, this would be better than a Way fellowship. I guess when you're just leaving you're in that vulnerable spot again where you don't trust anyone or anything to do with religion, God, church, whatever that people are trying to sell you. You've been indoctrinated against mainstream Christianity with all of VP's teachings on how all denominations were run by seed men. So at first it's really hard to fit in with a church family, especially one who has been "believing the trinity" for decades. So in that state, this probably would be among your best options. Plus, there's all the "prosperity gospel" BS to deal with in mainstream Christianity, as well as other politics, etc. Even all the worship services have changed dramatically to a more modern format. You don't know any of the songs to sing because the only ones you know were out of "Sing Along the Way" for decades. The greeters with coffee and donuts seem like aliens. But to me here is the rub with mainstream Christianity. Whatever else is controversial in the Bible, the teaching on Jesus as head of the body in Corinthians is not. So if Jesus is head of the body, not Rosalie, or Jean Yves, or some combination of Moynihan plus Horney, then the church I am attending may be located down the arm, or the leg, or whatever. But it certainly isn't the whole body. But with cults you have the Moynihans the Horneys, the Rosalies and the Jean Yves all acting as if they were the head of the body. Or in this state Moynihan and Horney are too confused to fall into that role, but over time it will migrate that way. Look at every other splinter. Look at Christian Family Fellowship for a model of how this works. This is the model of how to become an antichrist. This is wrong. If Paul teaches that my Lord and Savior's followers will function like a human body interacting, then that is what I will look for in his followers. Not antichrists. Then , when you run across a perspective like the local New Knoxville pastor (who wrote a quote about Undertow - penworks book) who speaks of building a local community where people can find healing not needing an "anointed man of God" you know he has the proper perspective.

Good post, T-Bone. Authenticity Yes. I can't even begin to think of Christians that should be doing this. Lk 12:42ff seems on point, about a master finding his servant(s) doing the right thing. Also, Deut 25, about giving proper value and not cheating. Although this applies to physical weights, I think it appropriate to apply it to "the weight of time" and giving good value for what an employer is paying for. 13“You must not have two different weightsf in your bag, one heavy and one light.g 14You must not have two differing dry measures in your house, a larger and a smaller. 15You must have a full and honest weight, a full and honest dry measure, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. 16For everyone who does such things and acts unfairly is detestable to the LORD your God. I think that compassion coupled with vision for improvement is important for Christian leaders. Compassion - everyone needs that! Vision - because it's not just seeing a need, but having the vision to see a way through and beyond the need,so as to lift the needy person(s). Also, the ability to communicate that vision, and get others enthusiastic and alongside. "Communication"" isn't just words (especially not fancy words) but will include action that brings forth results (healed and helped people). Of course, nothing will go anywhere without a deep reliance on the power of God to energise, but that can't be seen directly, only by its outcomes - showing faith by one's works.

John 20:7 Some versions say "wrapped together by itself," some "rolled together" etc I heard a very interesting comment made about this verse in church this morning. I’ve never heard anything else taught about it; nor can I see anything in a commentary. This, the young stand-in minister said, denoted a custom at the time. When a master had eaten his fill of a meal, he’d get up, toss his napkin down and walk off. This signified that any leftover food would be available for servants and slaves. If, however, the master just got up, intending to return (perhaps he had to answer a call of nature; perhaps deal with some other household issue or a visitor), he would fold (or roll) up his napkin and leave it. This signified to servants and slaves that he intended to return and finish his meal. The minister’s thought was that the head napkin that had been bound about Jesus’s head being folded neatly signified his imminent return. I wonder if anyone here has ever thought about this or read anything. Most commentaries are written by academicians a very long time ago who may never have travelled far from their home countries and never visited any part of the middle-east. It’s the kind of thing that one might think ought to be considered in “Manners & Customs” or “Light through an Eastern Window,” but there’s nothing. M&C merely suggests it was a “handkerchief used to tie the chin up,” without further commentary.

Yes

Raf, do you even believe there is a God and that God is Spirit? Do you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus has a new spiritual body? The bible says Jesus is seated at the right hand of God making intercession for followers of Him. Another words, Jesus is our connection between God and man. Also Jesus wants to save all of mankind and not just a small percentage of the population. Jesus is all about love, mercy, grace and truth as I have been seeing. Do you see this?

Raf, do you see any actual truth that you can learn from? Regardless of whether Adam was literal or figurative, one can still learn truth. Not physical or scientific, but spiritual.

Ok, but how far do we take that concept? What parts of Genesis are figurative rather than literal? Are the characters of Adam and Eve historical? Without getting too complicated, science/DNA/genetics has determined that they cannot have been historical, for a variety of reasons. Did a literal snake talk to Eve? If not, why did God punish snakes? If it was figurative, why is there no indication whatsoever that this is just an allegory? And how much of it is allegory? Did the original audience consider it a fictional allegory that is not history? What are the implications of that. Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes all the way back to Adam. Did he think Adam was a historical figure? Must have. I don't see evidence in the text that this is anything other than a factual account of what took place in Mesopotamia a few thousand years ago. And as a "factual" account, it strains credibility beyond the breaking point. Etc.

You're suggesting that the books of Moses were part of an oral tradition that was later put to paper, and that the anachronisms are the result of the late writing as opposed to the late composition. The problem I see here is that even if we are to accept that camels are a symbol of wealth, the anachronism still holds. Whatever the animal was, it wasn't a camel, and it makes no sense to change the animal into a camel to convey wealth when the original animal would have done the job quite nicely. It is not the same at all as an English translation using English weights and measures to convey simple concepts in a translated scripture, because we can go back to the scriptures themselves and see what the original wording was. Yes, we know it wasn't a penny. But we also know it doesn't really SAY penny in the text. We don't know that with Genesis. The only evidence we have is that it says camels. Anything else is speculation. If speculation satisfies your need to clarify an error, I can't argue with you. It doesn't satisfy mine. Usually when I read historical information about wealth, the writer is explicit in using the term "the equivalent of" to make sure we understand that the conquistadors didn't use "dollars" as currency. We see no indicators in Genesis that they're talking about anything other than camels. A better explanation would be that they were talking about a different animal, and that the translators were not familiar with that animal so they used the word camel, which they were familiar with. That's why I don't get in a huff about the Bible's descriptions of unicorns. Yes, the Bible does talk about unicorns. No, the creatures described are not horses with a horn growing out of their heads. So what was it? I have no idea. Atheists who rail about the Bible mentioning unicorns are taking a cheap and easy shot. Truth is, we don't know what the Bible is talking about, so it's best to just leave it be. There are enough real errors to worry about errors that arise from confusion or lack of clarity. I'm not sure there's any evidence of confusion in the translation of camels. The simplest solution is that Genesis was not written by Moses. It was written centuries later by people who had no way of knowing that they were guilty of introducing an anachronism into their story. Likewise, the description of Abraham as coming from Ur of the Chaldeans could only make sense if written at a time AFTER the Chaldeans were in Ur. Again, that would have been long after the time of Moses. Again, genuine question: where is the BIBLICAL evidence that Moses wrote Genesis? Is there any? Or did we just assume it because it's what we were told?

With God, time is an eternal NOW. Time is not a linear thing such as we know. So that means: Now, right now, the earth is being made into what we now know. Now, right now, Adam is being created. Now, right now, Adam is falling. Now, right now, prophecies are being given about Christ coming. Now, right now, Christ is coming. Now, right now, Christ is being executed. Now, right now, Christ is rising from the dead. Now, right now, the time of Pentecost is occurring. Now, right now, YOU are being born. Now, right now, all the events of your life are taking place. Now, right now, YOU are dying, dead, and your funeral is taking place. Now, right now, the time of Revelation is occurring. And so, it doesn't matter if you're a dispensationalist, a preterist, a whatever or a something else. It gives a somewhat different perspective on life, foreknowledge, predestination, fatalism, and how you live your day today. Not saying that I agree or disagree with this view - just saying it's another take on Christianity and God's plans that some people espouse. Good strong fervent Christians too, not drum-bangers but with a desire to educate God's people into a fuller spiritual awareness.

God first thanks faith no more is not that I don't love holy scripture and that it was inspired by holy spirit bible is only a shell that man took credit for as if they wrote it but it was written years before they were even born I worship love which is God just I prove the bible wrong means nothing the King James pulled hose over them as did the Way pulled hose over us I just pointed it out with love and a holy kiss Roy