♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 SBF, if you'd use the Quote function, it would be easier to tell your comments apart from the comments you're commenting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The Church of Christ is a fairly major denomination, and they believe that without a full immersion baptism, you are not saved. That's a pretty substantial disagreement on the subject of salvation.... Then again, SBF has already admitted that he/she still sins, and therefore is a child of the devil, as scripture clearly denotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savedbyfaith Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 SBF, if you'd use the Quote function, it would be easier to tell your comments apart from the comments you're commenting on. [sBF] Sorry for the inconvenience. I just don't know how to use all the functions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The Church of Christ is a fairly major denomination, and they believe that without a full immersion baptism, you are not saved. That's a pretty substantial disagreement on the subject of salvation.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lloyd Dobler, I think that there became major separations in the church starting early in its existence... Remember, they were not allowed to publicly gather, and even meeting privately was a chance on your life and that of your families! Dogma, the rules and regulations by which one lived their lives according to NT teachings, helped allow the secret early church to identify themselves to each other without speaking and risking such blatant and savagery retaliations. The first church, the Universal church (Catholics) started letting the growing public acceptance and respect, from enduring the intial brutality, to give way to a progressively potent power that seems to have went to these church's leaders' heads (and/or pockets)... instead of their hearts. They began claiming absolute knowledge and requirements (to benefit the church's own personal gain, or of themselves) to obtain admission into heaven... and added a lot of things that many did not agree and they began to protest... hence protestants. Different factions have went different ways now, many didn't know how to read the Bible's language, and it wasn't till the KJV that it probably was really starting to be open to most people. Remember, the world has not always had such a high literacy rate. Yet, the guise of religous dogma, IMO, now seems to protect each denomination from losing their own congregations to another faction or other religions. I think the next 500 years there will be great strides made in its direction back to similar beliefs and the original intentions. This might even contribute significantly to world peace, and no one can imagine that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savedbyfaith Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Your preconception that there is only one legitimate or "true" path one must follow in order to legitimately qualify as Christian according to scripture is defensive and self-fulfilling sewage of the highest order. [sBF] Thank you for your comments. The "true path? "When Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but me" (John 14:6), what do you think he ment? The admonition that only one interpretation, i.e., your own, is legitimate is not only self-reinforcing, it is intellectually perverse in the extreme. [sBF] The only legitimate interpretation is that which comes from above. Those who have the "capacity" do understand spiritual matters. Put more simply, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit can understand and interpret the scriptures. Do you understand what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Define for me how one such as you, or your parents, or your church, or your pastor has the authority to determine which interpretation of the bible's claims and dictates are fundamental. [sBF] As noted above. Every word out of the mouth of Jesus is "fundamental" to the faith. As believers apply themselves to prayer and study of the word, the Holy Spirit moves in their spirit and reveals truth. This is something that a non-believer can't do because he rejects the Word of God as divinely inpsired and therefore hasn't the desire, or the ability, to understand much of what scripture teaches. Explain to me how you, your parents or your pastor as human beings have the capacity (or audacity for that matter) to promote as gospel their own worldly interpretations of a word they believe to be divinely inspired, and therefore beyopnd the ken of simple mortals. [sBF] You ask a great question. First, it is not possible to make "worldy interpretations" of the divinely inspired canon. Christ's kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) and much of which is not understood in the natural realm (1 Cor. 2:14). You ask what is the capacity to do. As noted above, the capacity to "grasp" that which escapes men of great intellect is the Holy Spirit, who guides the believer into all truth (John 16:13). Is there something you don't understand which I might help you with? And define them clearly; I have no time or patience for the intellectual smokescreens I have thus far witnessed. [sBF] Oh please. You have all the time in the world. Come down off your pedantic pony and learn what the power of God is all about Peace, Savedbyfaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Lloyd Dobler, I think that there became major separations in the church starting early in its existence... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is completely irrelevant in the context of this conversation. SBF is asserting that currently no 'true christian' disagrees on 'core beliefs' or things like 'salvation'. They clearly do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savedbyfaith Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 You don't believe what it says either, you merely pick out what you want to fit your beliefs. [sBF] Please inform me what I don't believe. You completely ignore OT prophecy and pick out a couple pieces of scripture that "prove" Christianity. [sBF] Look Thankful, you're making unfounded statements. I love prophecy and have studied it for years. What prophecy do you think I ignore? Just because this discussion hasn't led to prophecy, please don't assume that I am disinterested or ignorant of them. I mean no one agrees. For every "proof" trinity text you pull, another "proof" text for non-trinity can be pulled. Pick a scripture, any scripture and make whatever you want. [sBF] Ok, I'll give you three scriptures to look up. 1. Matt. 12:25, 2. Rev. 19:16 3. 2 Cor. 3:17,18. After carefully reading these three verses, please tell me who the Lord is. Mark 10:18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. Jesus, clearly separates himself from god here. [sBF] Question: Is Jesus good? James 1:13 13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of G-d: for G-d cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: Wasn't Jesus tempted with evil? Yes, he was, by Satan. He cannot be god. [sBF] You are forgetting that Jesus was as much man as he was God (John 1:1,14). He was tempted in "the flesh," albeit sinless. Didn't Jesus die? God cannot die. Jesus cannot be god. [sBF] You're right. God cannot die. So who died. The sinless body of Jesus (his flesh). God is Spirit and cannot die (John 4:24). For three days the Spirit of God left the body of Jesus and after the third day raised him from the dead, which brings up another matter. Who raised Jesus from the dead? 1. Jesus - John 2:19. 2. Father - Gal. 1:1. 3. Holy Spirit - Rom. 8:11. Only God can raise someone from the dead. So which one of these is God? Also, the JEWISH MESSIAH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A DIRECT BLOODLINE FROM DAVID....VIRGIN BIRTH AXES THAT! [sBF] No it doesn't. Joseph was of the line of David and was not the natural father of Jesus. He was his legal father and gave Jesus legal descendancy. The virgin birth had to cicumvent natural child birth because the Messiah was to be of God (The Holy Spirit). Well they are believers whether you agree or not. They think that you are in the beast cult, because the BIBLE tells them so. [sBF] I'm still waiting for any of them to explain John 6:39, 10:28,29 and 18:9. Why won't they. It's because Jesus clearly says that anyone whom the Father gives to Jesus for salvation, he will not lose one of them. If "Ex-christians" don't believe anymore, then the scripture lies. No, I'm sorry, there is one bible with MANY VERISIONS of Christianity and they are all found in the bible, per scriptures that are picked and chosen. Not even YHWH threatens people with the horrors of hell that your "loving" Jesus does. That right there alone, is blaspheme of the Jewish God. [sBF] No, there are many Christians with one version of Christianity which is found in all versions. Hell is found in the OT is such verses as Isa. 14:9-11. How coincidental that the same verses, 9-11, are found in chapter 14 of the Revelation. Also, the very last verse in Isaiah (66:24) speaks of hell. Grace and peace to you, Savedbyfaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Also, the JEWISH MESSIAH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A DIRECT BLOODLINE FROM DAVID....VIRGIN BIRTH AXES THAT! [sBF] No it doesn't. Joseph was of the line of David and was not the natural father of Jesus. He was his legal father and gave Jesus legal descendancy. The virgin birth had to cicumvent natural child birth because the Messiah was to be of God (The Holy Spirit). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, but legal descendancy is not the same as bloodline descendancy. For Jesus to be in the bloodline of David, Joseph would have to be his natural father. You've already admitted that Joseph wasn't Jesus's natural father, so you have also admitted that Jesus wasn't of the bloodline of David. Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 [sBF] What then do they( deists) use as their source of authority? Regardless of whether or not any gods exist or not we human beings should know more about what we are. What makes us tick. Much useful information can come from this study. For the deist I would say that creation itself is a testament of the creator. Every person is a testament if there is a supreme being. The more we learn about nature and ourselves the more insight we can have of the creator. But we must sometimes say we don't know when we don't know. Ultimate Truth is not something that we have. None of us. But slowly but surley we can know more about the creator through study of nature. We should honestly study ourselves so we can know what makes us human. What is our function. What is our true potential. What separates us from the other animals and what do we have in comon with the other animals. Answering these questions through rigorous and honest study of nature and of humanity itself will bring us closer to truth than the bible. If there is a supreme being these are what will give us any real answers. Same goes if there is no god. These things should be found out because it is extremely useful to know. The power that your mythology book has over the masses only slows us down in this important work. Faith if it is to be worth anything should be contingent on evidances and not on here say stories from a contradictory and fallible book as the bible. Me personaly...I don't care if god exists until god cares to demonstrate that it does. That's my position. However, to be fair, short of god making a cameo appearance, the study of all of nature ( the sciences), as well as honest personal experiences that are honestly questioned and tested by the individual will bring us closer to the truth of there being a creator or not. Either way these pursuits...the persuit of what is real will be our true salvation here on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Hell is found in the OT is such verses as Isa. 14:9-11. How coincidental that the same verses, 9-11, are found in chapter 14 of the Revelation. Also, the very last verse in Isaiah (66:24) speaks of hell. Grace and peace to you, Savedbyfaith <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No mention of hell is found in either of the Isaiah verses you reference. Coincidentally, Isaiah 14:9-11 is not found in Revelations 14. By the way, Isaiah 14: 4-23 is a taunt that was to be taken up against the King of Babylon when "the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage" that the Isrealites were suffering at the hands of said King. In addition, Isaiah 66:24 refers to the dead bodies of those who rebelled against him. Not a single mention of spirits being tormented... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Did I see right? SBF is claim the True Scottsman argument with us? Sorry to say this, but you SBF, is not a true Christian. I know it for a fact, because I know I was a true Christian. If that is so, then you still are, only is a backslidden condition. Please share with me what you think Jesus ment in John 6:39, 10:28,29 and 18:9. These verses essentially say that all the Father gives to Jesus, he will not lose one. Because I woke up from the delusion and realized everything was made up. When you’re asleep, you are truly asleep and you are truly dreaming, but when you wake up you realize it still was nothing more than a dream. That I know for sure, but I discovered the God according to the Bible does not exist. For sure? Did Jesus not exist? Who created the universe? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bad argument SBF, extremely bad! And I still maintain that you are not a true Christian. You can never convince me to the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 No mention of hell is found in either of the Isaiah verses you reference. Coincidentally, Isaiah 14:9-11 is not found in Revelations 14. By the way, Isaiah 14: 4-23 is a taunt that was to be taken up against the King of Babylon when "the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage" that the Isrealites were suffering at the hands of said King. In addition, Isaiah 66:24 refers to the dead bodies of those who rebelled against him. Not a single mention of spirits being tormented... CT, didn't you hear what SBF said? He has the holy spirit and cannot be wrong because he can now understand what is not to be understood by us heathens? You can't possibly be saying that his holy spirit is no different than anyone else's...are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 CT, didn't you hear what SBF said? He has the holy spirit and cannot be wrong because he can now understand what is not to be understood by us heathens? You can't possibly be saying that his holy spirit is no different than anyone else's...are you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No... I AM saying that the holy spirit that's tugging the levers in his brain is a little... well, mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Mark 10:18: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. Jesus, clearly separates himself from god here. Question: Is Jesus good? Good one. Did Jesus saw himself as 'good'? ___________ To use quotes just type: [quote=Name of the person]Quoted text[/quote] and this will result: Quoted text Good luck. I'll be grateful because until now I have to spent too much effort to read your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Sorry for the inconvenience. I just don't know how to use all the functions If no one has replied this already, which I haven't seen... Type to start a quote, then copy and paste whatever you are quoting. The ending tag has /quote between the brackets. I'd type it, but then the forum would think it was a quote tag and not show it properly. Er, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Savedbyfaith, do you taking into consideration that the gospels could have been altered in later times? The verse of Mark 10:18 is also in Matthew 19:17 e.g. Consider the KJV: A man came before Jesus, and asked him, "Good Master, What must I do that I may inherit life eternal?". Jesus says to him, "Why do you call me Good? Only one is good, God." And the RSV: A man came before Jesus, and asked him, "Master, What _ good deed_ must I do that I may inherit life eternal?". Jesus says to him, "Why do you _ask me about what is good?_ Only one is good." Now, the question about whom is that one is left open. (See Kuchinsky.) What church is Jesus in Matth. 18:17 talking about (ecclesia)? (source: Matthew tendencies) If it's not the case that the words have to be from Jesus himself... they can be from the (unknown) author with a very clear agenda: to prove that Jesus is foretold and push towards a higher christology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 If "Ex-christians" don't believe anymore, then the scripture lies. Well duh. That's kind of the point. Good for you, for admitting that your scripture lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Sorry, but legal descendancy is not the same as bloodline descendancy.For Jesus to be in the bloodline of David, Joseph would have to be his natural father. You've already admitted that Joseph wasn't Jesus's natural father, so you have also admitted that Jesus wasn't of the bloodline of David. Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Crazy Tiger, isn't there two different genologies of Jesus in the Bible, both leading to David? Isn't one a geneology of Mary? If not, where does it say that Mary isn't of the lineage of David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Crazy Tiger, isn't there two different genologies of Jesus in the Bible, both leading to David? Isn't one a geneology of Mary? If not, where does it say that Mary isn't of the lineage of David? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The lineage must through the man and not the woman anyways. The question is irrelevelant. Maybe you should ask jews what they think of jesus, after all its thier religion xians ripped off. What is a jewish messiah? You already know what the xer bible says now ask the jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 To use quotes just type: [quote=Name of the person]Quoted text[/quote] and this will result: Quoted text <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh Saviourmachine... thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you... you are truly educating the population! I am going to save this information very close to me. I have a hard time figuring this stuff out! Saviourmachine, you have saved me in this area! Give me some time... and I eagerly await lesson #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 The lineage must through the man and not the woman anyways. The question is irrelevelant. Maybe you should ask jews what they think of jesus, after all its thier religion xians ripped off. What is a jewish messiah? You already know what the xer bible says now ask the jews. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dogmatically Challenged, let me share this with you... I was married to a Jewish Arab, although he is somewhat agnostic, his family wasn't... and they wanted me to convert to being Jewish because they said that the children are Jewish only if the mother is. Other Jews have remarked to me that their Jewish assignment is through their mother because back then they did not have DNA testing, and the mother is a 'sure' thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Crazy Tiger, isn't there two different genologies of Jesus in the Bible, both leading to David? Isn't one a geneology of Mary? If not, where does it say that Mary isn't of the lineage of David? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was waiting for that one... Yes, there is a geneology that tries to make it look like Jesus was of David's line through Mary. But, as DC has already pointed out, the bloodline is from father to son. It makes no difference if Mary was of David's lineage or not... Did you ever wonder why the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah who's coming was foretold? Well, that's one very major reason. In fact, that is enough of a reason for Jesus to be a false messiah, who should then be executed as per God's law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Dogmatically Challenged, let me share this with you... I was married to a Jewish Arab, although he is somewhat agnostic, his family wasn't... and they wanted me to convert to being Jewish because they said that the children are Jewish only if the mother is. Other Jews have remarked to me that their Jewish assignment is through their mother because back then they did not have DNA testing, and the mother is a 'sure' thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Property was inhereted through the males. Kingships as well. What you speak of is for testing for jewishness and not a messiah or a king. Also this that you speak has not been used for very long because jews were/are so scattered. As I said. Ask the jews instead of grasping for straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Malachi 4:5-6 5 "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus says that Elijah was John the Baptist, but that isn't what John the Baptist said John 1:2119 Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.[c]" 21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thankful, I would appreciate your perspective on an idea... since I know you will give it critical thought... which I truly appreciate! I want to have more consideration of another side. I think John the Baptist 'IS' Elijah, not physically but spiritually.... perhaps similar to the concept of reincarnation in coming back. I think that John the Baptist does not know that he is Elijah because of these verses... and I know that one would have to read something beyond the surface... so just give me your opinion on this scripture: Ecclesiates 1 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 1:8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Property was inhereted through the males. Kingships as well. What you speak of is for testing for jewishness and not a messiah or a king. Also this that you speak has not been used for very long because jews were/are so scattered. As I said. Ask the jews instead of grasping for straws. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Inheritence was through the male line only. here I gota go to a meeting, but will be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts