# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth ( Easy-to-Read Jesus of Nazareth Bible )

## Ronin Truth

*Easy-to-Read English Jesus of Nazareth Bible* 

http://d1d7ektpm2nljo.cloudfront.net...f_Nazareth.pdf

----------


## Ronin Truth

I should have tested the link when I posted it, but I didn't. Now it's fixed.

----------


## Ronin Truth

"Look Ma, no Paul."

----------


## Jamesiv1

I like this one better 

PDF file
http://www.prestongroup.org/stuff/Th...rson.Bible.pdf

More background, introduction, etc
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

at the Smithsonian
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-c...659505/?no-ist 

whoa!!  here's a Google book of the real deal (first I've seen of this)
http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf

I like Jefferson's compilation because it has all the teachings, and none of the divinity, miracles, etc.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I like Jefferson's compilation because it has all the teachings, and none of the divinity, miracles, etc.


Wasn't the resurrection kind of a miracle too?  

Why do you "like" the teaching without that stuff?  The divinity is kind of part of the teaching.  And the miracles are the proof of the divinity.  Just confused as you seem to have the ten commandments in your sig, or some version thereof.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Wasn't the resurrection kind of a miracle too?  
> 
> Why do you "like" the teaching without that stuff?  The divinity is kind of part of the teaching.  And the miracles are the proof of the divinity.  Just confused as you seem to have the ten commandments in your sig, or some version thereof.


Because I believe Jesus never claimed to be divine, and there weren't any miracles, or virgin birth, or resurrection.

I love Jesus because of his moral and spiritual teachings. Jefferson loved him for the same reasons.

I like the Ten Commandments because they are a good code for living. My sig is not meant to be a quote... I just tweaked them a bit to suit myself.

They are certainly not the *only* code for living, just one I happen to like a lot.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Because I believe Jesus never claimed to be divine*, and there weren't any miracles, or virgin birth, or resurrection.
> 
> I love Jesus because of his moral and spiritual teachings. Jefferson loved him for the same reasons.
> 
> I like the Ten Commandments because they are a good code for living. My sig is not meant to be a quote... I just tweaked them a bit to suit myself.
> 
> They are certainly not the *only* code for living, just one I happen to like a lot.


So you think the Gospel writers misquoted him?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> So you think the Gospel writers misquoted him?


I got no idea who misquoted who.  I just don't think Jesus claimed it, that's all.

Jesus' earliest followers - the ones that actually heard him speak - were not learned men. They were shepherds, peasants, farmers and fishermen; they were common folk.  The inability to read and write doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you can't read or write.

Which means the first stories about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted orally among his followers until they were written down by more learned men.

Oral tradition is not history. It's meant to make a point. Storytellers since forever have been known to bend a few facts to make a better story and to drive home the *point of the story.*

The gospels were written several years after the fact by men who compiled and wrote down *the stories*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I got no idea who misquoted who.  I just don't think Jesus claimed it, that's all.
> 
> Jesus' earliest followers - the ones that actually heard him speak - were not learned men. They were shepherds, peasants, farmers and fishermen; they were common folk.  The inability to read and write doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you can't read or write.
> 
> Which means the first stories about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted orally among his followers until they were written down by more learned men.
> 
> Oral tradition is not history. It's meant to make a point. Storytellers since forever have been known to bend a few facts to make a better story and to drive home the *point of the story.*
> 
> The gospels were written several years after the fact by men who compiled and wrote down *the stories*.


The gospels were written several _generations_ after Yeshua left the earth.  You're right that Gospel is not biography or history.  It's not intended to be.  The Gospels have elements of history though, and we also have written history by saints and other early Christians.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Actually, the ERV contains all 66 books of the Bible, you just found a publication which only includes the Gospels.  Therefore the ERV is not a "no Paul" version, the above is simply the 4 Gospels excerpted from the full ERV.

The ERV uses dynamic equivalency instead of word for word translation techniques.  DE can be problematic as it opens the door to obscuring doctrinal truths what would not be hidden in word-for-word translations.  DE translation isn't necessarily bad, but it's a lot more likely to be bad than word for word methods.

Rather than comparing to the Greek and Hebrew which almost nobody here reads, I will look at 2 known-excellent English Translations for comparison.  The NASB is pretty much the best English translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic in the world today.  The New King James Version is pretty much the best English translation of the Greek in the world today.  So I will compare OT passages to the NASB and NT passages to the NKJV.

*Trinitarian Doctrinal Passages
*
_John 1:1-4
_*ERV* 1 Before the world began, the Word[a] was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was there with God in the beginning. 3 Everything was made through him, and nothing was made without him. 4 In him there was life, and that life was a light for the people of the world.

*NKJV* 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Excellent rendering.  Bad translations of this passage tend to obscure that the Word is the Messiah, that the Word was present with God from the beginning, and/or that the Word is God.  The ERV misses none of these common failure points.
_John 14:26
_*ERV* But the Helper will teach you everything and cause you to remember all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name.

*NKJV* But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Slight obscurity, the Greek texts and good English translations refer to the Holy Spirit as a person, or persona, while less qualified translations will refer to the Holy Spirit as a thing or an it.  The ERV is not as bad as some versions for doing that, but by failing to use a personal pronoun it leaves the door open for the HS to be an impersonal thing.
_John 19:37
_*ERV* and People will look at the one they stabbed.

*NKJV* And again another Scripture says, They shall look on Him whom they pierced.
This is a reference quote to Zechariah 12:10 (discussed next).  ERV drops the ball on this passage by failing to identify that the one being stabbed is not some random guy, but God Himself.
_Zechariah 12:10
_*ERV*  I will fill Davids family and the people living in Jerusalem with a spirit of kindness and mercy. They will look to me, the one they stabbed, and they will be very sad. They will be as sad as someone crying over the death of their only son, as sad as someone crying over the death of their firstborn son.

*NASB* I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, [a]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
ERV completely drops the ball here by obscuring the identity of both the Spirit and God.
_Genesis 1:2
_*ERV* the earth was completely empty. There was nothing on the earth. Darkness covered the ocean, and Gods Spirit moved over[a] the water.

*NASB* The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters.
Competent translation.  Versions that fail this passage will refer to "a spirit" rather than "The Spirit," or eliminate the Spirit altogether and just call it 'wind.'  The ERV does a decent job on this passage.
*Repentance Doctrinal Passages
*
_Mark 1:15
_*ERV* He said, The right time is now here. Gods kingdom is very near.[a] Change your hearts and lives, and believe the Good News!

*NKJV* and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.
Competent translation.  The versions that fail this passage obscure the nature and importance of repentance.  ERV does a good job on this passage.
_Luke 24:45-47
_*ERV* 45 Then Jesus helped the followers understand these Scriptures about him. 46 Jesus said to them, It is written that the Messiah would be killed and rise from death on the third day. 47-48 You saw these things happenyou are witnesses. You must go and tell people that they must change and turn to God, which will bring them his forgiveness. You must start from Jerusalem and tell this message in my name to the people of all nations.

*NKJV* 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[a] from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
EEeeehhh... . . the idea of repentance is way too de-emphasized in the ERV for this passage.  It actually includes the idea "they must change and turn to God" which is better than most of the 'bad' translations of this passage, but it still misses the mark a bit by making the concept hazy and out of focus.
_Matthew 21:32
_*ERV* John came showing you the right way to live, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed John. You saw that happening, but you would not change. You still refused to believe him.

*NKJV* For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.
I understand why the ERV is using the word 'change' rather than 'repent,' which misses the mark a bit in Luke 24 above, but it works okay here in Matthew 21.  Competent translation.  ERV is fine here.
_2 Timothy 2:25
_*ERV* You must gently teach those who dont agree with you. Maybe God will let them change their hearts so that they can accept the truth.

*NKJV* in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,
ERV misses the mark here too, repentance isn't _allowed_, it is _given_.  Again, like most of these passages that some versions butcher, the ERV is not missing it as bad as some do, but it still misses the bullseye here.
*Salvation and Baptism Doctrinal Passages
*
_Acts 2:38
_*ERV* Peter said to them, Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Then God will forgive your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

*NKJV* Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Another slight misconstruction by the ERV here.  Baptism is for the remission of sins, sure, but other passages demonstrate people being saved prior to a water baptism.  The construction of the ERV would seem to deny the possibility of salvation without a water baptism, which would be a contradiction to other passages in the NT.  Again, however, it is not as bad as some versions.  The ERV leaves the idea a bit foggy, while the outright bad versions explicitly require baptism prior to any kind of salvation.
_Mark 1:4
_*ERV* So John the Baptizer came and was baptizing people in the desert area. He told them to be baptized to show that they wanted to change their lives, and then their sins would be forgiven.

*NKJV* John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Same problem.  The Greek sources clearly posit the purpose of baptism for the remission of sins, but they do not hinge the remission on the baptism.  The ERV here would seem to indicate that remission is impossible without the baptism.  Neither the Greek, nor competent English versions make that argument.  They state that the purpose of baptism is the remission of sins, but they do not say the remission is impossible without the baptism.
*Subtlety in rendering
*
MOST English translations miss this one, including the NASB and the NKJV.  The NASB includes the distinction in the footnotes, but not in the text proper.  The WEB is one of only about 4 English translations which get this passage right, so i will use it for comparison.

_John 21:15-17
_*ERV* 15 When they finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these other men love me? Peter answered, Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. Then Jesus said to him, Take care of my lambs.[a] 16 Again Jesus said to him, Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter answered, Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. Then Jesus said, Take care of my sheep. 17 A third time Jesus said, Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was sad because Jesus asked him three times, Do you love me? He said, Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you! Jesus said to him, Take care of my sheep.

*WEB* 15 So when they had eaten their breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these? He said to him, Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you. He said to him, Feed my lambs. 16 He said to him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me? He said to him, Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you. He said to him, Tend my sheep. 17 He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you have affection for me? Peter was grieved because he asked him the third time, Do you have affection for me? He said to him, Lord, you know everything. You know that I have affection for you. Jesus said to him, Feed my sheep.
Note that the WEB renders the difference between agape and phileo (two different words for 'love') as love vs affection.  Peter was grieved because the third time Yeshua said 'phileo' (affection) rather than 'agape' (love).  This is a distinction that most English translations including the ERV miss.
In final analysis, the ERV is not as bad as most of the bad translations, but it certainly misses the mark on some important concepts.  The WEB version is also an "easy to read" version that is way, way, way stronger in accuracy and precision.  If you are looking for a 'simple English' version of the scriptures to rely upon, you would be better off to use the WEB Bible over the ERV Bible.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I like this one better 
> 
> PDF file
> http://www.prestongroup.org/stuff/Th...rson.Bible.pdf
> 
> More background, introduction, etc
> http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
> 
> at the Smithsonian
> ...


Funny how people like the teachings so much but will simultaneously deny the divinity due to what it entails.

Everyone likes morality until they find out they don't get to decide what that is.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because I believe Jesus never claimed to be divine, and there weren't any miracles, or virgin birth, or resurrection.


Why did the Jews try to kill Him repeatedly, and eventually succeed at killing Him, if He was claiming He was just a regular guy?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Funny how people like the teachings so much but will simultaneously deny the divinity due to what it entails.
> 
> Everyone likes morality until they find out they don't get to decide what that is.


dood, it's not rocket science.

Wise and godly men have taught us how to live well and behave toward one another since we stood on two feet.

Actions speak louder than words.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Watch my feet, not my mouth.
You will know them by their fruits.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> dood, it's not rocket science.
> 
> Wise and godly men have taught us how to live well and behave toward one another since we stood on two feet.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words.
> A picture is worth a thousand words.
> Watch my feet, not my mouth.
> You will know them by their fruits.


I never said it was complicated.  It's just quite telling how you pick and choose what to believe based on what you want to believe.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> dood, it's not rocket science.
> 
> Wise and godly men have taught us how to live well and behave toward one another since we stood on two feet.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words.
> A picture is worth a thousand words.
> Watch my feet, not my mouth.
> You will know them by their fruits.


The problem is that without divine authority behind those words, it's just good advice.  A series of "is"es with no "ought"s.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I like this one better 
> 
> PDF file
> http://www.prestongroup.org/stuff/Th...rson.Bible.pdf
> 
> More background, introduction, etc
> http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
> 
> at the Smithsonian
> ...


Whatever it takes to float your soul. I like TJ's too.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Wasn't the resurrection kind of a miracle too? 
> 
> Why do you "like" the teaching without that stuff? The divinity is kind of part of the teaching. And the miracles are the proof of the divinity. Just confused as you seem to have the ten commandments in your sig, or some version thereof.


..... kind of a miracle too? 

Some folks just prefer the radio over TV too.

----------


## wizardwatson

> ..... kind of a miracle too? 
> 
> Some folks just prefer the radio over TV too.


I'm not following your analogy.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm not following your analogy.


Hear the words (teachings and preachings) vs. seeing the show (razzle dazzle miracles).  Does that help?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Hear the words (teachings and preachings) vs. seeing the show (razzle dazzle miracles).  Does that help?


Gotcha.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Why did the Jews try to kill Him repeatedly, and eventually succeed at killing Him?


Because he was a threat to The Powers That Be.

Abe Lincoln
William McKinley
Andrew Jackson
John F Kennedy
James Garfield
The entire family of Nicolas II
who knows how many more....

When someone threatens the financial well-being and political power of the establishment, bad things happen.

It's why I feared for Ron Paul's life; it's why I fear for Rand as well.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Because he was a threat to The Powers That Be.
> 
> Abe Lincoln
> William McKinley
> John F Kennedy
> James Garfield
> The entire family of Nicolas II
> who knows how many more....
> 
> ...


TPTB are just the next stage in evolution.  Morals maybe are just a lower stage in evolution.  Why should we rely on morals when we have objective science and objective ethics that everyone can agree on?

----------


## hells_unicorn

Oh great, another "unique" English translation so some bible salesman can retire at 32. The joys of American Christianity often involves reducing Christ to a marketing ploy. I do trust that this version at least tried to keep the illusion going by modifying John 2:16, right? 

As far as I'm concerned, having Jesus without the divinity is like heating up a bunch of pots and pans with no food in them. It's better to just admit you're on a hunger strike or that you're too broke or lazy to procure the food and come to terms with it.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Oh great, another "unique" English translation so some bible salesman can retire at 32. The joys of American Christianity often involves reducing Christ to a marketing ploy. I do trust that this version at least tried to keep the illusion going by modifying John 2:16, right? 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, having Jesus without the divinity is like heating up a bunch of pots and pans with no food in them. It's better to just admit you're on a hunger strike or that you're too broke or lazy to procure the food and come to terms with it.


Who needs bibles?  We aren't supposed to interpret them anyway.  We just gotta find people infused with the Holy Spirit.  Now we just gotta figure out how to identify them.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Who needs bibles?  We aren't supposed to interpret them anyway.  We just gotta find people infused with the Holy Spirit.  Now we just gotta figure out how to identify them.


You apparently need one, because you have no idea how the Holy Spirit relates to the bible. If you did, you'd be dropping these really brutal attempts at sarcasm. Say hello to Fenton Crackshell for me.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You apparently need one, because you have no idea how the Holy Spirit relates to the bible. If you did, you'd be dropping these really brutal attempts at sarcasm. Say hello to Fenton Crackshell for me.


Are you sure you're not a Calvinist?  Because your perception that I'm in a dark place seems to have raised your spirits.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because he was a threat to The Powers That Be.



No.  That's not the reason they killed Him.  They killed Him because He said He was God, therefore breaking the law of blasphemy:

John 19:



> As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
> 
> But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”
> 
> *The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”*
> 
> When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who needs bibles?  We aren't supposed to interpret them anyway. * We just gotta find people infused with the Holy Spirit*.  Now we just gotta figure out how to identify them.


I know you are trying to be sarcastic here, but what you say is true.  A correct interpretation of the Bible comes by the Holy Spirit only.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I know you are trying to be sarcastic here, but what you say is true. A correct interpretation of the Bible comes by the Holy Spirit only.



So I guess the Holy Spirit just must have "fixed" your Bible.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I know you are trying to be sarcastic here, but what you say is true.  A correct interpretation of the Bible comes by the Holy Spirit only.


I will stop being sarcastic.  Maybe that will help.

My sarcasm is related to the fact that there is no way to know who has the Holy Spirit unless someone does a miracle.  Would you and/or Hells_Unicorn agree?  If you don't do a miracle, or prophesize something, simply saying The Holy Spirit this, and The Holy Spirit that, means nothing.

To say the Holy Spirit "preserved the Word" or "preserved the Church" also means nothing in an argumentative sense.  The Holy Spirit may certainly have preserved the "church" but that doesn't give us any clue as to which church was preserved or who that is and it certainly doesn't validate the existing dogma of any church.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So I guess the Holy Spirit just must have "fixed" your Bible.


Are you suggesting that there are problems with the Bible?  I already showed you that you were wrong about the two accounts of Paul's conversion because the Greek word _akouo_ means both "to hear" and "to understand", so what else do you have?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Are you suggesting that there are problems with the Bible?  I already showed you that you were wrong about the two accounts of Paul's conversion because the Greek word _akouo_ means both "to hear" and "to understand", so what else do you have?


See, this is another thing that ticks me off about WBC.  They believe the Holy Spirit wrote the bible.

Who said the Holy Spirit preserved the 1611 Authorized King James Bible?

It's very simple folks.  

Calvinist "reformists" or what have you, claim infallibility in the written word.
Catholics and non-reformists claim infallibility in the Pope or their "church fathers".

If you are a normal person who doesn't believe in infallibility then you are a "heretic", "mystic", or whatever other name they can think of to basically say that you have to be part of a "special group" to actually understand.

Those are the two "popular" groups.  If you actually want to sit down and discuss the Word without belonging to one of those groups all you're going to be discussing is how you aren't in one of those two groups.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> See, this is another thing that ticks me off about WBC.  They believe the Holy Spirit wrote the bible.
> 
> Who said the Holy Spirit preserved the 1611 Authorized King James Bible?
> 
> It's very simple folks.  
> 
> Calvinist "reformists" or what have you, claim infallibility in the written word.
> Catholics and non-reformists claim infallibility in the Pope or their "church fathers".
> 
> ...


If the Westboro Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, then they are right.  




> 2 Timothy 3:16
> 
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,





> 2 Peter 1:21
> 
> For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

----------


## wizardwatson

> If the Westboro Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, then they are right.


That doesn't mean their interpretation is right about anything other than the scripture being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

----------


## erowe1

> I like Jefferson's compilation because it has all the teachings, and none of the divinity, miracles, etc.


How can that be? A lot of Jesus's teachings were about divinity and miracles.

----------


## erowe1

> See, this is another thing that ticks me off about WBC.  They believe the Holy Spirit wrote the bible.
> 
> Who said the Holy Spirit preserved the 1611 Authorized King James Bible?
> 
> It's very simple folks.  
> 
> Calvinist "reformists" or what have you, claim infallibility in the written word.
> Catholics and non-reformists claim infallibility in the Pope or their "church fathers".
> 
> ...


Westboro Baptist Church is one of the two popular groups?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Westboro Baptist Church is one of the two popular groups?


Absolutely.  They are Calvinist.

They are just an extreme form.  The entire evangelical movement pretty much agrees with all their main pillars.  No one claims them because they attack gays and soldiers and Catholics and celebrities.  If you removed those things they would be darlings of the evangelicals.

WBC members are just public in their condemnation.  Evangelicals simply keep to themselves.  But there is little difference in the underlying beliefs.

----------


## erowe1

> Absolutely.  They are Calvinist.
> 
> They are just an extreme form.  The entire evangelical movement pretty much agrees with all their main pillars.  No one claims them because they attack gays and soldiers and Catholics and celebrities.  If you removed those things they would be darlings of the evangelicals.


But the things you're talking about removing are their entire identity.

----------


## wizardwatson

> But the things you're talking about removing are their entire identity.


The last church service I went to was an evangelical church.  They talked about gay marriage pretty much the whole service.  They talked about how Christians are being persecuted.  

My point is that there's a lot of evangelicals who are in the closet and hold virtually the exact same beliefs as WBC.  Main difference is only the fact that they believe "America" is also the "elect" country.  Because they "support the troops".  If the evangelical movement abandoned America like WBC has, they would be hard to differentiate between WBC other than public picketing.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The last church service I went to was an evangelical church.  They talked about gay marriage pretty much the whole service.  They talked about how Christians are being persecuted.  
> 
> My point is that there's a lot of evangelicals who are in the closet and hold virtually the exact same beliefs as WBC.  Main difference is only the fact that they believe "America" is also the "elect" country.  Because they "support the troops".  If the evangelical movement abandoned America like WBC has, they would be hard to differentiate between WBC other than public picketing.


You went to one evangelical service where the preacher was obsessed with teh ghey, and somehow this is representative of "all evangelicals?"

----------


## wizardwatson

> You went to one evangelical service where the preacher was obsessed with teh ghey, and somehow this is representative of "all evangelicals?"


Really?  Every Republican candidate is talking about gay marriage.  I think it goes beyond WBC and one church I went to.

----------


## erowe1

> Really?  Every Republican candidate is talking about gay marriage.


I don't know if that's even the case. But isn't that kind of a relevant topic in politics today?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Really?  Every Republican candidate is talking about gay marriage.  I think it goes beyond WBC and one church I went to.


I'm an evangelical and a Republican, and a big part of the reason I was redistricted out was my opposition to the NC Marriage Amendment.  I finally found a non 501(c)3 church outside of Louisburg, I've been to about a dozen of their services, and never heard them go off on gays even once.  Perhaps you just have selective perception?

----------


## wizardwatson

> I'm an evangelical and a Republican, and a big part of the reason I was redistricted out was my opposition to the NC Marriage Amendment.  I finally found a non 501(c)3 church outside of Louisburg, I've been to about a dozen of their services, and never heard them go off on gays even once.  Perhaps you just have selective perception?


Perhaps you should lose the label.  You might as well just accept "heretic" like I have.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Really?  Every Republican candidate is talking about gay marriage.  I think it goes beyond WBC and one church I went to.


The only person in the news today (Sunday) talking about gay marriage is Jeb Bush, and he is a Roman Catholic.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Are you suggesting that there are problems with the Bible? I already showed you that you were wrong about the two accounts of Paul's conversion because the Greek word _akouo_ means both "to hear" and "to understand", so what else do you have?


http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html

BTW, there's quite a bit more too.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The only person in the news today (Sunday) talking about gay marriage is Jeb Bush, and he is a Roman Catholic.


It's Mothers Day.  We don't want to upset mommies with that kind of stuff now do we?

And that's your defense?  They aren't talking about it "today"?  Do you have a 24 memory retention?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's Mothers Day.  We don't want to upset mommies with that kind of stuff now do we?
> 
> And that's your defense?  They aren't talking about it "today"?  Do you have a 24 memory retention?


I don't really care much about what evangelicals say about gay marriage because most of them are statists.  Most atheists are statists.  They don't accept the arguments that we accept about removing the state from marriage, or removing the state entirely.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I will stop being sarcastic.  Maybe that will help.
> 
> My sarcasm is related to the fact that there is no way to know who has the Holy Spirit unless someone does a miracle.  Would you and/or Hells_Unicorn agree?  If you don't do a miracle, or prophesize something, simply saying The Holy Spirit this, and The Holy Spirit that, means nothing.
> 
> To say the Holy Spirit "preserved the Word" or "preserved the Church" also means nothing in an argumentative sense.  The Holy Spirit may certainly have preserved the "church" but that doesn't give us any clue as to which church was preserved or who that is and it certainly doesn't validate the existing dogma of any church.


We can't know with 100% assurance who is elect, but we can have a reasonable certainty of truth vs. untruth in the outer workings of others, hence Matthew 7:15-20 point regarding false prophets. However, we can come to a full assurance of our own growth with the help of the Holy Spirit, as 2 Peter 1:10 states *"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall"*.

Personal assurance of salvation was the final straw that caused the Protestant Reformation, as Rome had begun teaching that one can have no assurance of being saved regardless of his faith, which contradicts the letter and spirit of the words in 2 Peter referenced above.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> That doesn't mean their interpretation is right about anything other than the scripture being inspired by the Holy Spirit.


The issue with the Holy Spirit and Scripture is not a flaw in either or a disconnect between the two, but rather the depraved disposition of the unregenerate. Scripture is inspired of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit must also impute Grace upon the reader in order for it to be properly understood, lest it become dead letters, which is precisely how skeptics view The Bible.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html
> 
> BTW, there's quite a bit more too.


I've seen this website before, it's extremely ham-fisted and stupid in its exegesis, and similar complaints using its logic (or lack thereof) have been launched by New Atheists regarding The Gospel accounts. This is actually a perfect illustration of who doesn't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, people who can't grasp the notion that both prophets/apostles and false prophets/teachers can perform miracles, and that scripture is the guide by which we separate the shepherds and the wolves in sheep's clothing.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I've seen this website before, it's extremely ham-fisted and stupid in its exegesis, and similar complaints using its logic (or lack thereof) have been launched by New Atheists regarding The Gospel accounts. This is actually a perfect illustration of who doesn't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, people who can't grasp the notion that both prophets/apostles and false prophets/teachers can perform miracles, and that scripture is the guide by which we separate the shepherds and the wolves in sheep's clothing.


For you to say it's a perfect example of who doesn't have the Holy Spirit would imply that you yourself are guided by the Holy Spirit.  But how does an outside observer like me choose between Hells_Unicorn and Ronin Truth as to who has more of the Holy Spirit?

That is my question.

The bible says the Two Witnesses will have the powers of prophecy and to bring plagues.  Those people, in my opinion, are the only ones who will be able to speak with authority.  Because prophecy is the only litmus test for actually judging whether an individual is speaking for God.  

If no one is prophesizing, then we all have to use reason.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. For you to say it's a perfect example of who doesn't have the Holy Spirit would imply that you yourself are guided by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 2. But how does an outside observer like me choose between Hells_Unicorn and Ronin Truth as to who has more of the Holy Spirit?
> 
> 3. The bible says the Two Witnesses will have the powers of prophecy and to bring plagues.  Those people, in my opinion, are the only ones who will be able to speak with authority.  Because prophecy is the only litmus test for actually judging whether an individual is speaking for God.  
> 
> 4. If no one is prophesizing, then we all have to use reason.


1. Slicing up scripture and butchering it into materialist philosophical constructs is among the most brazen ways that one can testify of being unregenerate in the spirit. This is knowable both by reason and by intuition, though the former is the ordinary means of reaching and conveying the assessment. The entire Gospel stands or falls on certain declarations, such as those in John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Revelation 1:7; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Revelation 2:8, all of which make Christ's divinity pretty clear.

2. Search the scriptures as I have noted in point 1. Though to be honest, I can personally dismiss pretty much anyone looking to strike books from the NT canon without a further thought, primarily because I've heard all the arguments against Paul and James being compatible for example, and they all fall to pieces pretty easily when understanding the subjects that each is addressing. Education in doctrine is very profitable in one's growth and understanding, as always, search the scriptures to separate true doctrine from rubbish.

3. The Two Witnesses are The True Church and a Godly Civil Magistrate/Government. The Two Sons of Oil by Samuel B. Wylie gets into the meaning of Revelation 11:3-4. It's a very fascinating read from a political perspective as well as a church one, and I would argue is very relevant to any Christian supporting the Liberty Movement.

4. Reason is the ordinary means of understanding revelation and biblical prophecy, but it is subordinate to scriptural authority and consequently subordinate church authority where scripture is rightly discerned. However, elaborate reasoning shouldn't be necessary in dismissing these innovative "translations" as a marketing scheme by which people of limited education depart with money in exchange for a misleading message, provided one has some grasp of the testimony of church history.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We can't know with 100% assurance who is elect, but we can have a reasonable certainty of truth vs. untruth in the outer workings of others, hence Matthew 7:15-20 point regarding false prophets. However, we can come to a full assurance of our own growth with the help of the Holy Spirit, as 2 Peter 1:10 states *"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall"*.
> 
> Personal assurance of salvation was the final straw that caused the Protestant Reformation, as Rome had begun teaching that one can have no assurance of being saved regardless of his faith, which contradicts the letter and spirit of the words in 2 Peter referenced above.


Yes.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> See, this is another thing that ticks me off about WBC.  They believe the Holy Spirit wrote the bible.
> 
> Who said the Holy Spirit preserved the 1611 Authorized King James Bible?
> 
> It's very simple folks.  
> 
> Calvinist "reformists" or what have you, claim infallibility in the written word.
> Catholics and non-reformists claim infallibility in the Pope or their "church fathers".
> 
> ...


The good thing is that you can challenge claims of infallibility with empirical tests.  There's a way to know if someone's right about their claim.  I think the original written word of the Bible is infallible in this way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The last church service I went to was an evangelical church.  They talked about gay marriage pretty much the whole service.  They talked about how Christians are being persecuted.  
> 
> My point is that there's a lot of evangelicals who are in the closet and hold virtually the exact same beliefs as WBC.  Main difference is only the fact that they believe "America" is also the "elect" country.  Because they "support the troops".  If the evangelical movement abandoned America like WBC has, they would be hard to differentiate between WBC other than public picketing.


The thing you're apparently missing in your sweeping generalizations is that the WBC believes God sent them to do things that offend people to get their point across.  Real Christians believe persuasion is better than force or ridicule.  I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty big difference to me.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The good thing is that you can challenge claims of infallibility with empirical tests.  There's a way to know if someone's right about their claim.  I think the original written word of the Bible is infallible in this way.


I was taught basically this at the Seminary, that it's the _autographs_ which are infallible.  No translation can be described as infallible, and none of the hodge-podge pieced together source texts can be described as infallible.  Scribal errata have been identified in every compiled source we have.  The _scriptural autographs_ are infallible, everything else is subject to errata.  The scriptural autographs are no longer extant.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I was taught basically this at the Seminary, that it's the _autographs_ which are infallible.  No translation can be described as infallible, and none of the hodge-podge pieced together source texts can be described as infallible.  Scribal errata have been identified in every compiled source we have.  The _scriptural autographs_ are infallible, everything else is subject to errata.  The scriptural autographs are no longer extant.


Are you saying this is a problem?  The vast majority of these errata are completely meaningless and make no difference whatsoever.  There are only a few instances in which they are meaningful to the point of actually changing any part of the narrative, and even in those instances it's details that are in error, and the core message is not affected in the least.  Really, this is evidence that the Bible has not been corrupted or controlled by any particular sect, so we know the Bible has not been modified in that way.  Even the errors serve a purpose.  As has been noted, it would be rather suspect if every transcription we had was perfectly matching.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The Two Witnesses are The True Church and a Godly Civil Magistrate/Government. The Two Sons of Oil by Samuel B. Wylie gets into the meaning of Revelation 11:3-4. It's a very fascinating read from a political perspective as well as a church one, and I would argue is very relevant to any Christian supporting the Liberty Movement.


Hilarious.  So the two witnesses aren't even people.  This is what your 1800 years of solid interpretation has convinced you of.

There isn't a lot about the two witnesses so I will post:

Revelation 11:7-13




> The Witnesses Killed and Raised
> 
> 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. 10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
> 
> 11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.


So everything in these verses is symbolic?  "Having feet" is symobolic.  Prophesizing is symbolic.  People seeing them is symbolic.  Being killed in Jerusalem is symbolic.  Being resurrected is symbolic.

You know why your church fathers likely made these symbolic?  My guess is it gives people something to look forward to.  It takes authority away from them.

The verses about the two witnesses are perhaps the most literal clear verses in Revelation and you're telling me that it actually refers to the "true church" and "the state".  Beautiful.  And which church is it exactly that is going to prophesy and have the power to bring plagues?  Is it yours?

I'm actually glad you believe this.  Maybe when the two witnesses do arrive you might get a clue that you have been deceived.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Are you saying this is a problem?  The vast majority of these errata are completely meaningless and make no difference whatsoever.  There are only a few instances in which they are meaningful to the point of actually changing any part of the narrative, and even in those instances it's details that are in error, and the core message is not affected in the least.  Really, this is evidence that the Bible has not been corrupted or controlled by any particular sect, so we know the Bible has not been modified in that way.  Even the errors serve a purpose.  As has been noted, it would be rather suspect if every transcription we had was perfectly matching.


I never said it was a problem. Just being accurate in terms. The level of fidelity for the nature of the reconstruction of scripture is astonishing. I don't think it's a bad thing to recognize that only the autographs are *perfect*.  Indeed, simply by having a realistic outlook on the subject, we are more likely to be taken seriously by non-fanatics.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> No.  That's not the reason they killed Him.  They killed Him because He said He was God, therefore breaking the law of blasphemy:
> 
> John 19:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
> ...


naah, I don't buy it.

Why would they give a flip? unless he was a threat the way I said he was a threat.

Show me the verses where Jesus claims to be God, would you please?  (anyone, not just Sola) I want to study them further.

You say Jesus claimed to be God, but the verse you quote says he was accused of claiming to be the _son_ of God.  Might not we all be sons of God?  and _that_ is what Jesus meant? We call God "Our Father", after all. That's the way Jesus said we should pray.

Another thing I would like to study further is the "Son of Man" reference.... it's in the Bible many times, and I've never read anything I considered definitive about it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I'm not sure that believers are really supposed to interact at all with people who 'have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.'  That would seem to be a stipulated prohibition.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> naah, I don't buy it.
> 
> Why would they give a flip? unless he was a threat the way I said he was a threat.
> 
> Show me the verses where Jesus claims to be God, would you please?  (anyone, not just Sola) I want to study them further.
> 
> You say Jesus claimed to be God, but the verse you quote says he was accused of claiming to be the _son_ of God.  Might not we all be sons of God?  and _that_ is what Jesus meant? We call God "Our Father", after all. That's the way Jesus said we should pray.
> 
> Another thing I would like to study further is the "Son of Man" reference.... it's in the Bible many times, and I've never read anything I considered definitive about it.



Look again at the verse you quoted.  Jesus wasn't saying he was A son of God.  He said He was THE Son of God.  THE Son of God puts you in a relationship with the Father that no creature could have. 

How could Jesus have been charged for blasphemy if He was just claiming He was A son of God just like everyone else was claiming?  Why wasn't every average Jew who said he was A son of God brought up on charges of blasphemy then?

Put 2 and 2 together.

When Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone Him,  they said:




> John 10:33
> 
> "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God”.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Look again at the verse you quoted.  Jesus wasn't saying he was A son of God.  He said He was THE Son of God.


Look again your own self.  Jesus isn't saying *anything* in that verse - "The Jewish leaders insisted...he claimed to be the Son of God"

And surely they weren't twisting his words so Pilate would kill him, and they wouldn't have to.

Can you show where Jesus says "I am The (one and only) Son of God" ?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I never said it was a problem. Just being accurate in terms. The level of fidelity for the nature of the reconstruction of scripture is astonishing. I don't think it's a bad thing to recognize that only the autographs are *perfect*.  Indeed, simply by having a realistic outlook on the subject, we are more likely to be taken seriously by non-fanatics.


To be clear, that is my position as well.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Look again your own self.  Jesus isn't saying *anything* in that verse - "The Jewish leaders insisted...he claimed to be the Son of God"
> 
> And surely they weren't twisting his words so Pilate would kill him, and they wouldn't have to.
> 
> Can you show where Jesus says "I am The (one and only) Son of God" ?


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-the-son-of-god




> As I mentioned in the debate with Dr. Badawi, we have good historical grounds for thinking that Jesus understood himself to be and claimed to be the Son of God. First, Jesus' parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Mk 12.1-9) tells us that Jesus thought of himself as God's only son, distinct from all the prophets, God's final messenger, and even the heir of Israel itself. Notice that one cannot delete the figure of the son from the parable as an inauthentic, later addition, for then the parable lacks any climax and point. Moreover, the uniqueness of the son is not only explicitly stated but inherently implied by the tenants' stratagem of murdering the heir in order to claim possession of the vineyard. So this parable discloses to us that the historical Jesus believed and taught that he was the only Son of God.
> 
> Second, Jesus' self-concept as God's Son comes to explicit expression in Matthew 11.27 (cf. Lk 10.22): "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." Here Jesus claims to be the exclusive Son of God and the only revelation of God the Father to mankind. This saying tells us that Jesus thought of himself as God's Son in an absolute and unique sense and as having been invested with the exclusive authority to reveal his Father God to men.
> 
> Finally, Jesus' saying concerning the date of the consummation: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32) again speaks of the Son in terms implying uniqueness.
> 
> On the basis of these three sayings, we have good evidence that Jesus thought of himself as the unique Son of God. It's true that Jewish kings were referred to as God's sons (II Sam 7.14; I Chron 17.13; 22.10; Ps 2.6-7; 89.26-27), and in Wisdom literature the righteous man could be characterized as God's child, having God as his father (Wisdom 2.13, 16, 18; 5.5; Sirach 4.10; 51.10). Such generic usage is, however, irrelevant to Jesus' claim to divine Sonship, given the uniqueness and exclusivity of his claim. Jesus thought of himself as God's Son in a singular sense that set him apart even from the prophets who had gone before.
> 
> But what was that sense? We mustn't conclude too hastily that the title was an implied claim to divinity. It might be that Jesus thought of himself as God's unique Son in the sense that he was the promised Messiah. The Jewish pseudepigraphal work IV Ezra 7.28-29 speaks of Messiah as God's son but nonetheless as mortal. The Dead Sea scrolls also show that the Messiah was thought to be God's son (4Q174; 4Q246; 1QSa 2.11-12). The uniqueness of Jesus' Sonship could be a function of the uniqueness of the Messiah.
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To be clear, that is my position as well.


Yes, I was aware of that in Post #57, I was trying to back up your position by recounting the teachings of a very conservative Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which I learned during studies in Hebrew, Greek, and Textural Criticism.  That's why I was rather surprised by your response.

----------


## Ronin Truth

We've already had the 'the son of God' vs. 'a son of God' Greek scriptural significant dispute and discussion previously and elsewhere. 

Ya think maybe we can just skip it this time? Or is redundant rehash absolutely necessary?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I've seen this website before, it's extremely ham-fisted and stupid in its exegesis, and similar complaints using its logic (or lack thereof) have been launched by New Atheists regarding The Gospel accounts. This is actually a perfect illustration of who doesn't have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, people who can't grasp the notion that both prophets/apostles and false prophets/teachers can perform miracles, and that scripture is the guide by which we separate the shepherds and the wolves in sheep's clothing.


Are you arguing with the 'ham-fisted and stupid' (so called) website, or with the Bible? I kinda got lost in the shuffle there. 

Did Paul say that stuff, or not? Does the Bible say that stuff, or not? If not, then are all of my Bibles broken? 

Avoiding the questionable Holy Spirit cop-out is really much preferred, BTW.

Is definitively answering the ham-fisted and stupid not acceptable? 

Are you supporting and going to bat in favor of the Satanic pagan Greek tool, logic? 

(I see Paulinist, Sola has managed to escape and avoid answering yet once again.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Look again your own self.  Jesus isn't saying *anything* in that verse - "The Jewish leaders insisted...he claimed to be the Son of God"
> 
> And surely they weren't twisting his words so Pilate would kill him, and they wouldn't have to.
> 
> Can you show where Jesus says "I am The (one and only) Son of God" ?



Just one?  




> * Matthew 11:27
> 
> All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.*


Jesus taught that He was God's unique, one and only Son.  He has a relationship with the Father that no one else has.  Furthermore,  the Son has the power to reveal the Father to some people and not to others.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Just one?
> 
> Jesus taught that He was God's unique, one and only Son.  He has a relationship with the Father that no one else has.  Furthermore,  the Son has the power to reveal the Father to some people and not to others.


What tickles me about this forum is that we all post with such angst and earnestness, and sound and fury thinking we're going to change what the target of our affection believes because of our post lol

Pretty sure I've never seen that happen lol

I know I do that.  Discussion forums are funny that way, especially the religious ones 

It's all good. I belong to a fellowship that says it doesn't matter what your God is like; what's important is that you believe -- and surrender.

"Surrender as much of yourself as you can, to as much of God as you understand."

"Take what you want and leave the rest."

"More will be revealed."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We've already had the 'the son of God' vs. 'a son of God' Greek scriptural significant dispute and discussion previously and elsewhere. 
> 
> Ya think maybe we can just skip it this time? Or is redundant rehash absolutely necessary?


Everything on this entire subject is redundant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What tickles me about this forum is that we all post with such angst and earnestness, and sound and fury thinking we're going to change what the target of our affection believes because of our post lol
> 
> Pretty sure I've never seen that happen lol
> 
> I know I do that.  Discussion forums are funny that way, especially the religious ones 
> 
> It's all good. I belong to a fellowship that says it doesn't matter what your God is like; what's important is that you believe -- and surrender.
> 
> "Surrender as much of yourself as you can, to as much of God as you understand."
> ...


James,

Wouldn't you rather be in the fellowship of the one and only unique Son (like Jesus said He was)?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What tickles me about this forum is that we all post with such angst and earnestness, and sound and fury thinking we're going to change what the target of our affection believes because of our post lol
> 
> Pretty sure I've never seen that happen lol
> 
> I know I do that.  Discussion forums are funny that way, especially the religious ones 
> 
> It's all good. I belong to a fellowship that says it doesn't matter what your God is like; what's important is that you believe -- and surrender.
> 
> "Surrender as much of yourself as you can, to as much of God as you understand."
> ...


He says as he concedes the point.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> He says as he concedes the point.


you just made my point lol

----------


## Terry1

> "Look Ma, no Paul."


Okay Ronin, we're going to test your biblical knowledge based upon only the teachings of Jesus.  Can you answer this question then?

What did Jesus mean when He said this:

*17*Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  *18*For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

And no cheating looking at Paul's teachings. Lol

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> you just made my point lol


If your point was that you have no response, then yeah, I did.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Okay Ronin, we're going to test your biblical knowledge based upon only the teachings of Jesus. Can you answer this question then?
> 
> What did Jesus mean when He said this:
> 
> *17*Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. *18*For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
> 
> And no cheating looking at Paul's teachings. Lol


The laws of the OT were binding, still are and always will be regardless, of what any lying SOB Roman pharisee Satanic pagan will be telling you later.

Close enough? 

Here's a few more Paul "issues" for you. http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html Go ahead and cheat.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> James,
> 
> Wouldn't you rather be in the fellowship of the one and only unique Son (like Jesus said He was)?


Actually, I'm thinking about joining one of those too, as a matter of fact.  Might be a little dicey, given my feelings about Paul and such but I'll give it a go.  I can't decide if I should have a sit-down with the Pastor right up front, or wait until after I get called out for disrupting class lol

----------


## Terry1

> The laws of the OT were binding, still are and always will be regardless, of what any lying SOB Roman pharisee Satanic pagan will be telling you later.
> 
> Close enough? 
> 
> Here's a few more Paul "issues" for you. http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html Go ahead and cheat.


Incorrect--- This is what happens when you dispense with the teachings of Paul because you can't understand them.  

And this is the reason why the entire Bible is to be used for reproof and instruction as it says here: *2 Timothy 3:16* 
*16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness*:

When Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it means:

Under the curse of the Mosaic Law, mankind was cursed and doomed for their failure to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly and to the letter of it.  The Mosaic Law was a temporal law that consisted of a set of ceremonies and rituals that were to be performed perfectly in order to adhear to and obey the Ten Commandments of God.  In the OT--and while under the Mosaic Law--the only way mankind could obtain righteousness was by being in perfect obedience to this law.  

Moses knew all along that they couldn't keep this law perfectly being chosen by God in the first place to give this law to them.  As a result of the failure then and during the time of Moses--he knowing and well aware of God's plan placed the Book of the *temporal* Law of Moses (The Mosaic Law) in the side of the Ark of the Covenant as a "witness against them for their failure to keep this law perfectly" and the Ten Commandments of God were place top-dead-center inside the Ark to show that the Ten Commandments were at the very center of the will of God-- Because Jesus is the complete and perfect fulfillment of the Mosaic Law that mankind could not keep---as scripture tells you here:

*Deuteronomy 31:26*
*26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.


Now the judgment is sealed against mankind's failure to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly and to the letter and this is the testimony of Moses to prove that mankind could not save themselves, but needed a savior to do that for them---hence "THE PROMISE"--and the coming of the Savior Jesus Christ--The Messiah--God incarnate and the Ten Commandments of God personified was the only one who could fulfill the Law of Moses perfectly--being made perfect Himself as mankind could not do being made imperfect.  The death and resurrection of Christ was that fulfillment of the Mosaic Law--releasing mankind from their curse of eternal death under that law for their failure to save themselves by keeping that law perfectly and to the letter.

By you making the claim that "the law is still binding" you are in total denial of the work of Jesus Christ on that cross and His fulfilling that Mosaic Law that mankind could not do by themselves.

Now and today--Because of what Jesus did on that cross--we can only be saved by the Grace of God and through that same faith in Jesus Christ with full belief of what He did to set us free from the curse of the Mosaic Law--being our failure to keep that law perfectly and to the letter of it.  All we are instructed to do today is to abide in Christ in faith by believing and doing what we've been called to do in Christ and that is done by our obedience to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit which is Christ Himself.

And this is why Paul teaches us that attempting to keep that same Law of Moses by claiming that the OT Law is still binding is a curse to those who attempt to keep it because it is a denial of Jesus as the savior who fulfilled that Law all by Himself through His death and resurrection to free mankind from the curse of that same Mosaic Law.  

Now we are under the "law/Covenant of faith/Jesus" and no more under the curse of the "law/covenant of Moses".  We have been set free through the blood of Christ.  Hence the "New Covenant of Faith/Jesus Christ.  The Ten Commandments of God is Jesus Christ personified.  Through faith and belief in Christ and His work on the cross and nothing we did on our own because we could not save ourselves through obedience to the Mosaic Law--we are now reconciled back to God through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross--lest we should boast--because we did nothing and can do nothing to save ourselves.  Only through abiding in Christ do we have the HOPE of salvation as long as we remain abiding in Christ--and endure to the end with Him.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Incorrect--- This is what happens when you dispense with the teachings of Paul because you can't understand them. 
> 
> And this is the reason why the entire Bible is to be used for reproof and instruction as it says here: *2 Timothy 3:16* 
> *16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness*:
> 
> When Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it means:
> 
> Under the curse of the Mosaic Law, mankind was cursed and doomed for their failure to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly and to the letter of it. The Mosaic Law was a temporal law that consisted of a set of ceremonies and rituals that were to be performed perfectly in order to adhear to and obey the Ten Commandments of God. In the OT--and while under the Mosaic Law--the only way mankind could obtain righteousness was by being in perfect obedience to this law. 
> 
> ...






> *Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No*
> 
> *CAVEAT*: The Law given Moses applicable to "foreigners/sojourners" (Gentiles) is a relatively small set of moral commands primarily from Leviticus, incorporating most of the Ten Commandments. So if the Law given Moses applies to Gentiles, it is not a burdensome list. Yet, we are still applying literally the Law, just as James did in Acts 15, by treating the term "foreigner/sojourners" versus "Israel" as literally as possible. This distinction perfectly explains why James said circumcision does not apply to Gentiles, _i.e._, Leviticus 12:1-3 only requires sons of "Israel" to be circumcised. See this webpage where we discuss this issue in more depth.
> *
> Jesus's View on the Law*. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:
> 
> (17) Think not that I came to destroy_ the Law [of Moses]_ or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in *no wise pass away from the Law*, till all things be accomplished [_i.e._, all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. 
> 
> (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and_ shall teach men so_*,* shall be called *least* in the kingdom of heaven: but *whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great* in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)
> ...


Believe who and what you wish and choose, Paulinist. That may really help to explain 30 some thousand different "Christian"(so called) denominations. 

I think I'll just stick with Jesus, it's a much safer bet.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Incorrect--- This is what happens when you dispense with the teachings of Paul because you can't understand them.  
> 
> And this is the reason why the entire Bible is to be used for reproof and instruction as it says here: *2 Timothy 3:16* 
> *16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness*:
> 
> When Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it means:
> 
> Under the curse of the Mosaic Law,


The Law was not a curse, it was a blessing.  It was _made into_ a curse by people who demanded perfect physical obedience, when it was always supposed to be light and life, not darkness and death.  The Pharisees were not examples of how the Law was supposed to be kept, the Pharisees were examples of how it was NOT supposed to be kept.  

This is something that mainline Christians today get so very wrong.  They look at the Pharisees and think "That's what the Mosaic Law was all about."  Nothing could be more wrong.  The Messiah was angry at the Pharisees because they were doing it WRONG. 




> mankind was cursed and doomed for their failure to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly and to the letter of it.  The Mosaic Law was a temporal law that consisted of a set of ceremonies and rituals that were to be performed perfectly in order to adhear to and obey the Ten Commandments of God.  In the OT--and while under the Mosaic Law--the only way mankind could obtain righteousness was by being in perfect obedience to this law.


You are describing how it was _corrupted_, not it's original intent.  David the King was righteous, and yet he was a murderer.  You are looking at how the Pharisees treated the Law and assuming that that was how the Law was intended to be from God.  That's simply not true.

Yeshua was not angry at the Pharisees because they were doing it _right_, Yeshua was angry at the Pharisees because they were doing it _wrong_.




> Moses knew all along that they couldn't keep this law perfectly being chosen by God in the first place to give this law to them.  As a result of the failure then and during the time of Moses--he knowing and well aware of God's plan placed the Book of the *temporal* Law of Moses (The Mosaic Law) in the side of the Ark of the Covenant as a "witness against them for their failure to keep this law perfectly" and the Ten Commandments of God were place top-dead-center inside the Ark to show that the Ten Commandments were at the very center of the will of God-- Because Jesus is the complete and perfect fulfillment of the Mosaic Law that mankind could not keep---as scripture tells you here:
> 
> *Deuteronomy 31:26*
> 26 *Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.*


This passage does not say that the Law will condemn them for not being perfect, it says that it will condemn them for being _rebellious_.




> Now the judgment is sealed against mankind's failure to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly and to the letter and this is the testimony of Moses to prove that mankind could not save themselves, but needed a savior to do that for them---hence "THE PROMISE"--and the coming of the Savior Jesus Christ--The Messiah--God incarnate and the Ten Commandments of God personified was the only one who could fulfill the Law of Moses perfectly--being made perfect Himself as mankind could not do being made imperfect.  The death and resurrection of Christ was that fulfillment of the Mosaic Law--releasing mankind from their curse of eternal death under that law for their failure to save themselves by keeping that law perfectly and to the letter.
> 
> By you making the claim that "the law is still binding" you are in total denial of the work of Jesus Christ on that cross and His fulfilling that Mosaic Law that mankind could not do by themselves.


Actually, you are both wrong.  The Law was never supposed to 'bind' in the way you are describing in the first place.  That was the corruption of the Pharisees.  Ronin is wrong because he places this strict and probably salvific requirement for obedience on the Law like the Pharisees did, and you are wrong because you are assuming the Pharisaic application of the Law was what God intended.




> Now and today--Because of what Jesus did on that cross--we can only be saved by the Grace of God and through that same faith in Jesus Christ with full belief of what He did to set us free from the curse of the Mosaic Law--being our failure to keep that law perfectly and to the letter of it.  All we are instructed to do today is to abide in Christ in faith by believing and doing what we've been called to do in Christ and that is done by our obedience to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit which is Christ Himself.


The Law was never supposed to be a curse.  Corrupted men turned it from a blessing into a curse in order to wield power over others.  Yeshua did not abolish the Law, He abolished the curse of death that the likes of the Pharisees had put into the Law.  He also made the Law FULL.  

"Fulfilled the Law" is not a synonym for "abolished the Law."  Yeshua fulfilled the Law by bringing it to fruition.  By making it full.  Demonstrating how it applied metaphysically, and how the physical relationship to the Law had no bearing on salvation in God.  




> And this is why Paul teaches us that attempting to keep that same Law of Moses by claiming that the OT Law is still binding is a curse to those who attempt to keep it because it is a denial of Jesus as the savior who fulfilled that Law all by Himself through His death and resurrection to free mankind from the curse of that same Mosaic Law.


For a point of fact, Yeshua raised the bar HIGHER than Moses did.  Moses allowed divorce, Yeshua did not.  Moses said it was sinful to commit adultery.  Yeshua said it was sinful to even contemplate adultery.  Moses said people should try to live by the Law, Yeshua said that we must be as perfect as God.  




> Now we are under the "law/Covenant of faith/Jesus" and no more under the curse of the "law/covenant of Moses".  We have been set free through the blood of Christ.


Yeshua removed the penalty of death, so that noone could ever corrupt the Word of God again and turn it into a weapon of death (although some folks sure do try).  There is no more place for legalism.  We are free from the penalty of death, because all of the death was died for us in Messiah.  The Law still exists, and it is still valid.  Paul taught the application of the Law under the Covenant of Messiah, demonstrating that "thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads the grain" meant that the Churches Paul ministered to should pay and feed him.  If the Law were made invalid or irrelevant, then Paul would have been sinning when he quoted Deuteronomy 25:4.

Yeshua Himself quoted Deuteronomy more than any other work in the entirety of scripture.

The Law is as vibrant and relevant to us today as it was the day Moses recorded it.  The curse of death was removed from the Law by Yeshua's death and the Law was made FULL (fullfilled) by the Messiah's resurrection.  Now we understand that the Law is spiritually applied, that physical obedience is irrelevant to salvation, and that the Law acts as a "North Star" guiding us in the way of righteousness.




> Hence the "New Covenant of Faith/Jesus Christ.  The Ten Commandments of God is Jesus Christ personified.  Through faith and belief in Christ and His work on the cross and nothing we did on our own because we could not save ourselves through obedience to the Mosaic Law--we are now reconciled back to God through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross--lest we should boast--because we did nothing and can do nothing to save ourselves.  Only through abiding in Christ do we have the HOPE of salvation as long as we remain abiding in Christ--and endure to the end with Him.


People were NEVER supposed to be saved by obedience to the Law.  That was the Pharisees corruption, and the reason Yeshua was so angry with them.  Yeshua was not angry with the Pharisees for doing it right, Yeshua was angry with the Pharisees for doing it wrong.

Messiah removed the death from the Law, and brought it to full fruition.  He did not abolish the Law.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Law was not a curse, it was a blessing. It was _made into_ a curse by people who demanded perfect physical obedience, when it was always supposed to be light and life, not darkness and death. The Pharisees were not examples of how the Law was supposed to be kept, the Pharisees were examples of how it was NOT supposed to be kept. 
> 
> This is something that mainline Christians today get so very wrong. They look at the Pharisees and think "That's what the Mosaic Law was all about." Nothing could be more wrong. The Messiah was angry at the Pharisees because they were doing it WRONG. 
> 
> 
> 
> You are describing how it was _corrupted_, not it's original intent. David the King was righteous, and yet he was a murderer. You are looking at how the Pharisees treated the Law and assuming that that was how the Law was intended to be from God. That's simply not true.
> 
> Yeshua was not angry at the Pharisees because they were doing it _right_, Yeshua was angry at the Pharisees because they were doing it _wrong_.
> ...


Thanks , but no, partially incorrect, I'm not a Paulinist/Christian, I just like Jesus (but not Paul).

----------


## Terry1

> Believe who and what you wish and choose, Paulinist. That may really help to explain 30 some thousand different "Christian"(so called) denominations. 
> 
> I think I'll just stick with Jesus, it's a much safer bet.


Whenever Paul refers to "the law"--he's referring to mankind's inability to keep that law perfectly and to the letter which became a curse to them because of this--revealing that only Jesus (who is the embodiment of that same law brought into perfection and fulfilled by his blood--his death and resurrection.

What this means that Paul is saying that for anyone to try and keep that Mosaic law still to obtain righteousness and perfection will only find death and the curse under that same law because that is why mankind was condemned under that law in the OT to begin with.  

Jesus *IS THE PERFECT MOSAIC LAW* Only Jesus could fulfill it and under the New Covenant of faith--Jesus is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments which is HIS LAW because ONLY Jesus could fulfill that same law perfectly being that law personified and the Ten Commandments personified and perfect to the letter.

NOTE:  Notice that it never says that Jesus kept the law--Jesus fulfilled that law because HE IS THAT LAW!  Jesus did what no man can possibly do and that was to reconcile us back to God through His Blood and HIS ALONE.

You saying you can keep this law apart from Jesus Christ yourself is nothing short of blasphemy and a flat out denial of what Jesus did on that cross.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Whenever Paul refers to "the law"--he's referring to mankind's inability to keep that law perfectly and to the letter which _became_ a curse to them because of this--revealing that only Jesus (who is the embodiment of that same law brought into perfection and fulfilled by his blood--his death and resurrection.


Much, much, much better, thank you. 




> What this means that Paul is saying that for anyone to try and keep that Mosaic law still to obtain righteousness and perfection will only find death and the curse under that same law because that is why mankind was condemned under that law in the OT to begin with.


Seriously, this is way more accurate than the one I replied to above.

You are correct, trying to keep the Law to obtain righteousness is sinful, because it attempts to nullify what Messiah did.

Small correction though, people were not condemned by the Law as it was given (according to it's original intent), but rather by how it had been _corrupted_ by men who tried to use it to control others.  

As it was given according to it's original intent, it was to serve a similar purpose as it is today -- more of a guide and less of a hammer and anvil thing -- only it was not yet made full in Messiah so people's understanding of it was rudimentary at best.

The part of the Law that actually led to condemnation came not from God or the Law itself, but from the corruption with which men had corrupted it.




> Jesus *IS THE PERFECT MOSAIC LAW* Only Jesus could fulfill it and under the New Covenant of faith--Jesus is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments which is HIS LAW because ONLY Jesus could fulfill that same law perfectly being that law personified and the Ten Commandments personified and perfect to the letter.


All of this is correct.




> NOTE:  Notice that it never says that Jesus kept the law--Jesus fulfilled that law because HE IS THAT LAW!  Jesus did what no man can possibly do and that was to reconcile us back to God through His Blood and HIS ALONE.


Well, to be fair, He fulfilled it _and_ kept it, both.  Moreover, he restored the original intent by removing the corruption of death from the Law with His own death, and then brought it to fruition with His resurrection.




> You saying you can keep this law apart from Jesus Christ yourself is nothing short of blasphemy and a flat out denial of what Jesus did on that cross.


All of this is true, but I would go even further.  One could not keep the Law apart from Yeshua....on the very day Moses wrote it down.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Whenever Paul refers to "the law"--he's referring to mankind's inability to keep that law perfectly and to the letter which became a curse to them because of this--revealing that only Jesus (who is the embodiment of that same law brought into perfection and fulfilled by his blood--his death and resurrection.
> 
> What this means that Paul is saying that for anyone to try and keep that Mosaic law still to obtain righteousness and perfection will only find death and the curse under that same law because that is why mankind was condemned under that law in the OT to begin with. 
> 
> Jesus *IS THE PERFECT MOSAIC LAW* Only Jesus could fulfill it and under the New Covenant of faith--Jesus is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments which is HIS LAW because ONLY Jesus could fulfill that same law perfectly being that law personified and the Ten Commandments personified and perfect to the letter.
> 
> NOTE: Notice that it never says that Jesus kept the law--Jesus fulfilled that law because HE IS THAT LAW! Jesus did what no man can possibly do and that was to reconcile us back to God through His Blood and HIS ALONE.
> 
> You saying you can keep this law apart from Jesus Christ yourself is nothing short of blasphemy and a flat out denial of what Jesus did on that cross.


I don't think I've ever said anything even close to that. Actually, I'm a whole lot closer to being a Buddhist than anything else. 

But I still really don't like Paul. Have you finished that list of Paul problems yet? Since you didn't mention it, I'll guess, NO.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't think I've ever said anything even close to that. Actually, I'm a whole lot closer to being a Buddhist than anything else. 
> 
> But I still really don't like Paul. Have you finished that list of Paul problems yet? Since you didn't mention it, I'll guess, NO.



A "Buddhist" eh? Lol  Well that certainly is a far cry from defending Jesus against Paul--as if you even understood what either of them were talking about.  I'm thinking  you're going to have that same problem with Buddah and his eighteen arhats as well.  Surly you'll find one or two of them out of sink with Buddah.

----------


## Terry1

> Much, much, much better, thank you. 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, this is way more accurate than the one I replied to above.
> 
> You are correct, trying to keep the Law to obtain righteousness is sinful, because it attempts to nullify what Messiah did.
> 
> Small correction though, people were not condemned by the Law as it was given (according to it's original intent), but rather by how it had been _corrupted_ by men who tried to use it to control others.  
> ...


Thanks Gunny.  I was hoping that my second reply to Ronin might explain things better for you as well.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> A "Buddhist" eh? Lol Well that certainly is a far cry from defending Jesus against Paul--as if you even understood what either of them were talking about. I'm thinking you're going to have that same problem with Buddah and his eighteen arhats as well. Surly you'll find one or two of them out of sink with Buddah.


Jesus really doesn't need any defense help from me.  He knows what's what.  And it ain't Paul nor "Christianity".  Silly Paulinists.

There is a similar regrettable situation with Buddha.  One group worships the teachings and another group worships Buddha.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus really doesn't need any defense help from me.  He knows what's what.  And it ain't Paul nor "Christianity".  Silly Paulinists.
> 
> There is a similar regrettable situation with Buddha.  *One group worships the teachings and another group worships Buddha*.


It's not possible for a third group to worship both?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's not possible for a third group to worship both?


Buddha doesn't want to be worshiped.

----------


## Ronin Truth

//

----------


## Terry1

> Buddha doesn't want to be worshiped.


Then why do his followers leave sacrifices at the feet of his statues and pray in front of buddah.  My girlfriend is a Buddhist, she owns her own restaurant makes sacrificial food to buddah.  I laughed at her one day because she made some really awesome dish to give to the buddah statue she had in there.  I asked her if he was done, because I wanted to finish the rest of it--and I did--I ate the whole thing and it was so good.   I stole buddah's food sacrifice. 

BTW--Buddha's followers worship him the same way Christians worship Jesus Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then why do his followers leave sacrifices at the feet of his statues and pray in front of buddah.  My girlfriend is a Buddhist, she owns her own restaurant makes sacrificial food to buddah.  I laughed at her one day because she made some really awesome dish to give to the buddah statue she had in there.  I asked her if he was done, because I wanted to finish the rest of it--and I did--I ate the whole thing and it was so good.   I stole buddah's food sacrifice. 
> 
> BTW--Buddha's followers worship him the same way Christians worship Jesus Christ.


I used to manage a hotel for Indian owners and every morning they would come to the hotel and worship a large Buddha statue they had set up in the back room.

----------


## Terry1

> I used to manage a hotel for Indian owners and every morning they would come to the hotel and worship a large Buddha statue they had set up in the back room.



Good thing it wasn't me cause I'd have been back there wolfin down buddah's sacrificial food.  Man--they make buddah some real gourmet dishes too.  Did you ever go back there and steal any of his food sacrifices?  Good stuff!

----------


## otherone

> Good thing it wasn't me cause I'd have been back there wolfin down buddah's sacrificial food.  Man--they make buddah some real gourmet dishes too.  Did you ever go back there and steal any of his food sacrifices?  Good stuff!


I've heard it's even better if one is in a state of Grace before eating it.

----------


## otherone

''

----------


## Terry1

> I've heard it's even better if one is in a state of Grace before eating it.


I don't know about the state of grace, but I think I achieved nirvana with a touch of gas afterwards.  I could be a vegan real easy the way they make stuff.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't know about the state of grace, but I think I achieved nirvana with a touch of gas afterwards. I could be a vegan real easy the way they make stuff.


  Yeah, if I were you I wouldn't want to deal with all of the Paul crap either.  Especially since so much of your "Christianity" appears to be reliant on and invested in him.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah, if I were you I wouldn't want to deal with all of the Paul crap either.  Especially since so much of your "Christianity" appears to be reliant on and invested in him.


Everyone's entitled to their opinion based upon their own perceptions-whether they're right or wrong.  I don't agree with you about Paul, but that's my opinion too based what I do understand through years of study and being a Christian.  If you want to be a Buddhist--then that is your label as well.  I don't mind labels as long as they're true and accurate.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Everyone's entitled to their opinion based upon their own perceptions-whether they're right or wrong. I don't agree with you about Paul, but that's my opinion too based what I do understand through years of study and being a Christian. If you want to be a Buddhist--then that is your label as well. I don't mind labels as long as they're true and accurate.


  I really do not need nor require your approval nor blessing for my interests in Buddhism. 

I guess you don't really need to agree with your Bible about Paul either.  I gotta say, I do find that just absolutely fascinating though.  Just go ahead and keep your eyes closed and maybe it all will just go away, by miracle or magic.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Then why do his followers leave sacrifices at the feet of his statues and pray in front of buddah. My girlfriend is a Buddhist, she owns her own restaurant makes sacrificial food to buddah. I laughed at her one day because she made some really awesome dish to give to the buddah statue she had in there. I asked her if he was done, because I wanted to finish the rest of it--and I did--I ate the whole thing and it was so good.  I stole buddah's food sacrifice. 
> 
> BTW--Buddha's followers worship him the same way Christians worship Jesus Christ.


Yes some do, Buddha requested otherwise.  And some do not.  

Jesus told his followers what to do and how to live.  How many follow those commands?

Perhaps it's just the same kind of human SNAFUBAR mindset that makes a saint out of Paul.

*I never cease to be amazed at mankind's ability to take a basically good idea, and to then just ROYALLY SCREW IT UP!*

----------


## wizardwatson

> Yes some do, Buddha requested otherwise.
> 
> Perhaps it's just the same kind of human SNAFUBAR mindset that makes a saint out of Paul.




As a former practicing Buddhist, well still practicing really, there's nothing in Buddhism that conflicts with Christianity in my opinion I just don't meditate in a temple anymore, I would agree with Ronin here.  Buddha was just a guy and history-real history-might simply show that he was simply "born again".  Problem is people these days think that is a common thing to be born again.  I don't.  I think it's incredibly rare.  My current theory is that the buddhist concept of enlightenment is in fact the Christian concept of being born again.  

Of course half this country thinks they are born again, but then again 99% of this country is insane as well so that doesn't hold much water.

You must be born again but that doesn't mean it will happen in this life, or at Christ's coming, or in the millenial kingdom.  I believe 99.9+% of humans will be born again well into the new heaven/new earth.

Of course this is all speculation.




> *I never cease to be amazed at mankind's ability to take a basically good idea, and to then just ROYALLY SCREW IT UP!*


The first thing that came to my mind was, "you mean like the INTERNET?"

----------


## Ronin Truth

> As a former practicing Buddhist, well still practicing really, there's nothing in Buddhism that conflicts with Christianity in my opinion I just don't meditate in a temple anymore, I would agree with Ronin here. Buddha was just a guy and history-real history-might simply show that he was simply "born again". Problem is people these days think that is a common thing to be born again. I don't. I think it's incredibly rare. My current theory is that the buddhist concept of enlightenment is in fact the Christian concept of being born again. 
> 
> Of course half this country thinks they are born again, but then again 99% of this country is insane as well so that doesn't hold much water.
> 
> You must be born again but that doesn't mean it will happen in this life, or at Christ's coming, or in the millenial kingdom. I believe 99.9+% of humans will be born again well into the new heaven/new earth.
> 
> Of course this is all speculation.
> 
> 
> ...



No not specifically, that quote refers originally to WAAAAAAY back in human history and also right up until now.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes some do, Buddha requested otherwise.  And some do not.  
> 
> Jesus told his followers what to do and how to live.  How many follow those commands?
> 
> Perhaps it's just the same kind of human SNAFUBAR mindset that makes a saint out of Paul.
> 
> *I never cease to be amazed at mankind's ability to take a basically good idea, and to then just ROYALLY SCREW IT UP!*


Exactly.  Maybe that's why there are 30,000 "Christian" denominations instead of anything to do with Scripture.

----------


## TER

If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.

 _Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo_, Against Faustus Bk. 33.9 [ca. 354-430]

----------


## wizardwatson

> “…If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.”
> 
> — _Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo_, Against Faustus Bk. 33.9 [ca. 354-430]


Peter was right next to Christ.  Peter was the "rock".  Peter said he would die for his Master.  Peter risked his life by attempting to fight off the soldiers trying to arrest Christ.

Peter denied Christ three times and abandoned him like everyone else.

But somehow I'm supposed to believe that after 2000 years men have held the church intact?  Try again.

----------


## TER

> Peter was right next to Christ.  Peter was the "rock".  Peter said he would die for his Master.  Peter risked his life by attempting to fight off the soldiers trying to arrest Christ.
> 
> Peter denied Christ three times and abandoned him like everyone else.
> 
> But somehow I'm supposed to believe that after 2000 years men have held the church intact?  Try again.


That's okay.  The Church staying intact does not depend on what you think or believe.  It will far outlive you, and greater men then you have doubted it would last since the day Christ ascended into Heaven and stronger men then you have fought against it.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That's okay.  The Church staying intact does not depend on what you think or believe.  It will far outlive you.


Well, I don't plan on being dead very long.

Jesus only said to preach the gospel and baptize.  That's been done.  There's nothing requiring a church remaining.  Not in the way of organization.  In fact the bible says the church is scattered.  

You don't believe in the two witnesses.  You don't seem to believe in the apocalypse even though Christ was quite clear about things getting worse, yet you seem to think things are going to get better.

Here's the problem.  If you don't believe the two witnesses are real people you're likely to be deceived when they do come because your "church fathers" are going to claim probably (SWAGing here to use a Ronin term) that the two witnesses were the beast and false prophet.  You will notice amazing parallels between the beast and false prophet and those who take the mark and the two witnesses and the 144,000.  It says that the 144,000 will also be marked.  The beast and false prophet will have powers just like the two witnesses.

So you see denying these things by your 1800 years of faith in your church fathers is going to put you in hot water.

The two witnesses will wreak some serious destruction in attempting to preach the Word in this cursed world.  Everyone will hate them.  So it will be easy for false christians to be deceived into thinking they were the beast and false prophet rather than being killed by the beast.  It will then be quite easy for Satan to convince everyone that he and his minions are in fact the "true church" or even Christ/God himself.  

All because people deny plain words and violate their conscience so that they can be "special".

----------


## TER

Oh, and by the way, not everyone abandoned Christ on the Cross.  The Virgin Mary and St. John were among those who stood at the foot of the Cross.  At that moment, they were the remnant until Chirst resurrected, forgave St. Peter and inaugurated His Church which was granted the authority by God on the Day of Pentecost to fulfill Christ's commission to His beloved.

----------


## TER

> Well, I don't plan on being dead very long.
> 
> Jesus only said to preach the gospel and baptize.  That's been done.  There's nothing requiring a church remaining.  Not in the way of organization.  In fact the bible says the church is scattered.  
> 
> You don't believe in the two witnesses.  You don't seem to believe in the apocalypse even though Christ was quite clear about things getting worse, yet you seem to think things are going to get better.
> 
> Here's the problem.  If you don't believe the two witnesses are real people you're likely to be deceived when they do come because your "church fathers" are going to claim probably (SWAGing here to use a Ronin term) that the two witnesses were the beast and false prophet.  You will notice amazing parallels between the beast and false prophet and those who take the mark and the two witnesses and the 144,000.  It says that the 144,000 will also be marked.  The beast and false prophet will have powers just like the two witnesses.
> 
> So you see denying these things by your 1800 years of faith in your church fathers is going to put you in hot water.
> ...


I never said the two witnesses were not real people.  In fact, if I recall, I contributed in a thread of yours and said that many Church Fathers taught that the two would be Elijiah and Enoch.  So, I'm not sure why you are accusing me of such a thing.

But anyway, I thank you for the discussion and I leave you with the last word as I have no desire to debate you.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Oh, and by the way, not everyone abandoned Christ on the Cross.  The Virgin Mary and St. John were among those who stood at the foot of the Cross.  At that moment, they were the remnant until Chirst resurrected, forgave St. Peter and inaugurated His Church which was granted the authority by God on the Day of Pentecost to fulfill Christ's commission to His beloved.


I don't deny the church isn't destroyed.  I doubt that it exists in the form of an organization, period.  Every church is suspect.  And when I see the fruits of these churches being contradictory to the text they claim to follow I get even more suspect.  Guilty until proven innocent is how we have to deal with the churches in my opinion.  

At pentecost they performed miracles didn't they?  Couldn't the apostles heal and speak in tongues?  Isn't the fact that no church does this anymore proof that the Holy Spirit has waned when it comes to the organized church?

----------


## wizardwatson

> I never said the two witnesses were not real people.  In fact, if I recall, I contributed in a thread of yours and said that many Church Fathers taught that the two would be Elijiah and Enoch.  So, I'm not sure why you are accusing me of such a thing.
> 
> But anyway, I thank you for the discussion and I leave you with the last word as I have no desire to debate you.


Actually, I think that was Hells_Unicorn.  Apologies.

----------


## TER

> Actually, I think that was Hells_Unicorn.  Apologies.


No worries.  Good night.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't deny the church isn't destroyed.  I doubt that it exists in the form of an organization, period.  Every church is suspect.  *And when I see the fruits of these churches being contradictory to the text they claim to follow I get even more suspect.*  Guilty until proven innocent is how we have to deal with the churches in my opinion.  
> 
> At pentecost they performed miracles didn't they?  Couldn't the apostles heal and speak in tongues?  Isn't the fact that no church does this anymore proof that the Holy Spirit has waned when it comes to the organized church?


Certainly!  When you find error in what a particular parish is doing, the blame belongs to the parishoners as much as to the clergy.  The laity is responsible for being a check against error.  This check (among others) is about as close as we mortals can get to keeping the apostolic faith in tact.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, I don't plan on being dead very long.
> 
> Jesus only said to preach the gospel and baptize.  That's been done.  There's nothing requiring a church remaining.  Not in the way of organization.*  In fact the bible says the church is scattered. * 
> 
> You don't believe in the two witnesses.  You don't seem to believe in the apocalypse even though Christ was quite clear about things getting worse, yet you seem to think things are going to get better.
> 
> Here's the problem.  If you don't believe the two witnesses are real people you're likely to be deceived when they do come because your "church fathers" are going to claim probably (SWAGing here to use a Ronin term) that the two witnesses were the beast and false prophet.  You will notice amazing parallels between the beast and false prophet and those who take the mark and the two witnesses and the 144,000.  It says that the 144,000 will also be marked.  The beast and false prophet will have powers just like the two witnesses.
> 
> So you see denying these things by your 1800 years of faith in your church fathers is going to put you in hot water.
> ...


Being in diaspora is not the same as ceasing to exist.  Just like you and your family don't cease to be related simply because you live in different places.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Peter was right next to Christ.  Peter was the "rock".  Peter said he would die for his Master.  Peter risked his life by attempting to fight off the soldiers trying to arrest Christ.
> 
> Peter denied Christ three times and abandoned him like everyone else.
> 
> But somehow I'm supposed to believe that after 2000 years men have held the church intact?  Try again.


You are correct.  The church is most definitely fallible.  TER has a distorted view of the church.  A bit of the church's history that I find interesting, though, is the early universalist tendencies that have since been declared heresy by the majority that has taken over and corrupted church doctrine.

That is why Sola Scriptura is so important.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Being in diaspora is not the same as ceasing to exist.  Just like you and your family don't cease to be related simply because you live in different places.


Well, my beliefs are all conjecture anyway.  I don't claim to be guided or under the auspices of the Holy Spirit like so many others claim for themselves when they claim to be "born again" or part of the "true church".  All I have is what little faith I have, which isn't much.  Doesn't "seem" much to me anyway.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You are correct.  The church is most definitely fallible.  TER has a distorted view of the church.  A bit of the church's history that I find interesting, though, is the early universalist tendencies that have since been declared heresy by the majority that has taken over and corrupted church doctrine.
> 
> That is why Sola Scriptura is so important.


But the scripture is corrupted too.  At least the versions we are reading are.  Incorrect translations, omissions.  I wonder if even the Jewish texts are unmolested.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But the scripture is corrupted too.  At least the versions we are reading are.  Incorrect translations, omissions.  I wonder if even the Jewish texts are unmolested.


I'm not talking about English translations when I talk about Scripture.  The original meaning of the autographs is still very much intact, not to mention the integrity of the transcriptions, which is second to none out of any ancient text.  

There may even be a few transcriptional errors that change minor details and sometimes even whole words (!), but this really just proves that the scripture has not been corrupted by any one group that tried to "fix" it for their own purposes.

The beautiful thing about it is that we humans have all the faculties to understand the core message no matter where we may be from, and we also all have the ability to look up the original Greek or Hebrew in case of any disputes in translations.

----------


## PierzStyx

Hebrew is an incredibly nuanced language, and the concepts and ideas of the Bible are thousands of years old. Any "simplified" version is only likely to obfuscate the deeper meanings of the Bible, not reveal them. Instead of simplifying the scriptures, complicate your thinking. Develop your brain's complexity.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Hebrew is an incredibly nuanced language, and the concepts and ideas of the Bible are thousands of years old. Any "simplified" version is only likely to obfuscate the deeper meanings of the Bible, not reveal them. Instead of simplifying the scriptures, complicate your thinking. Develop your brain's complexity.


I don't think Hebrew is that complicated at all.  Root and lemma, prefix and suffix.  You put them all together and it far less 'nuanced' than English by a long mile.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't think Hebrew is that complicated at all.  Root and lemma, prefix and suffix.  You put them all together and it far less 'nuanced' than English by a long mile.


I think what PierStyx said still holds some truth, though.  One should strive to understand by adapting your mind rather than changing the text for the sake of simplification.  When something is "simplified" the question is always, what was changed or eliminated in order to make it simpler?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I think what PierStyx said still holds some truth, though.  One should strive to understand by adapting your mind rather than changing the text for the sake of simplification.  When something is "simplified" the question is always, what was changed or eliminated in order to make it simpler?


Well sure, to really get the Hebrew you have to change the way you think a bit. Biblical Hebrew, for example usually implies the being verb. So there is not a lot of 'is was will be.' 

The he syntax is as different from English as night and day. You can't really just translate the words and expect it to work. 

I agree that anything 'simplified' is all but guaranteed to lose shades and meaning. 

We already lose enough shading just going from Hebrew to English. Washing out the colors even further is not the best idea. 

If there is a 'simple' version that does a pretty good job of it though, it would be the World English Bible WEB. 

I prefer the NASB as the best English translation for Hebrew and Aramaic, but sometimes I will go to the WEB for how to fold ideas into common speech without sounding Biblical and stilted. I usually do that if I want to quote a bible passage without saying "I am quoting a Bible passage."

honestly though, that's just about the only 'simplified' English version I wouldn't prefer to use as kindling.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Interesting. But I think I'll just go ahead and leave all of the Bible color, texture, shading, nuance, etc. to the purist Paulinist groupies. 

The OP pdf is just more than good enough for me.  

*“I am such an anarchist as Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount have made me.” -- Leo Tolstoy*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

LOL the last time I heard accuracy referred to as a bad thing, the clowns were running against Ron Paul.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL the last time I heard accuracy referred to as a bad thing, the clowns were running against Ron Paul.


Not a bad thing, just also not required for non-believing intelligent layman Jesus fan like me.


*"This Earth is not my home. I'm just passing through."*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not a bad thing, just also not required for non-believing intelligent layman Jesus fan like me.
> 
> 
> *"This Earth is not my home. I'm just passing through."*


You should make that your new slogan:  "Accuracy not required."

----------

