[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles

Title: Jesus in his own words
Source: Gospels and Revelation
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 6, 2023
Author: Vicomte13
Post Date: 2023-10-06 20:29:32 by Vicomte13
Keywords: None
Views: 5517
Comments: 86

Revelation 22: 12-19

"Lo! I am coming swiftly, and my wage is with me, to pay each according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who are rinsing their robes, that it will be their license to the tree of life, and they may enter the gates of the city.

Outside are curs, and drug dealers*, and the sexually immoral, and murderers, and idolators, and everyone making and fondling lies.

I, Jesus, send my messenger** to testify these things to you in the assembly***. I am the root and the race of David, the resplendent morning star."

*The word is "pharmakeia". A "pharmakon" sold drugs to people to produce the highs and hallucinations that drugs produce. The ancients ascribed these effects to "magic", so old translations in English will say "sorcerers" or "enchanters" here, but that gives rise to the idea of what we would call a wizard, and that's not what Jesus meant at all. He was talking about the people who sold drugs to people to blow their minds. The word he used,"pharmakeia" could most literally be translated as "pharmacist," ut that would definitely give the wrong idea too. Todays pharmacists are not selling "magic" potions to blow people's minds. The proper modern equivalent of "pharmakeia" is "drug dealer".

**"Messenger" is the meaning of the world "angelos". "Angel," in English is "messenger" in English. Translators like to leave the word barely translated, as "angel", which gives rise in English - to a specific thought of a supernatural winged being. Not in Greek. "Angelos" is simply a "messenger,' whether from on high with wings, or a man with sandals. SoJesus said: he sent his messengers - winged angels or sandal-clad men - it's the message that mattered to Jesus, not the particular physical description of the messenger.

***"Assembly" is what the word "ecclesia" translates to. It literally means "those called out" - of a regular meeting to a special assembly. This is always translated into the English word "church", but that really obscures meaning. For English did not come to be until after 1100, and in 1100, the Church - capital C - was an established political structure - the Catholic Church. And "church" also refers to the specific religious buildings..And Jesus is not talking about buildings or political organizations, he is talking about assemblies of people, who follow him. "Church" is a loaded anachronism that Catholics and the Orthodox will seize upon to say "See! See! The Church ALWAYS was." But that is a distortion. Yes, there were always followers of Jesus back to the First Century. But no, they were not following all of the rites and traditions and ideas of the Catholic or Orthodox Church, not in the first century. "Assemblies of people devoted to Jesus" is what the "ecclesia" is. Therefore, the word "assembly" here is precise and apt, not the Anglcism "church", which did not exist for another 1000 years, and which carries with it all sorts of implications that Jesus was not talking about at all.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Vicomte13 (#0)

Lo! I am coming swiftly, and my wage is with me, to pay each according to his works

Yes the wages of sin is death. Thank God for grace. Not of works lest any man should boast.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   1:23:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#0) (Edited)

Revelation 21:6-8

..."I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son. But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the sexually immoral, drug dealers, idolators and liars of every sort, their lot is in the burning lake of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

_________________

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   8:12:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

drug dealers isnt in the bible.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   10:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)

Yes it is.

The word is "pharmakeia" - pharmacists.

It is not "enchanters" or "sorcerers" as it is frequently translated.

Pharmakeia were very specific people in the ancient world. They ran apothecary establishments that specialized in selling pills and potions that would make people high - opium and its derivatives. light dosages of strichinine that have the same effect.

In the ancient world they did not understand chemistry, so they thought they were selling "magic". The "magic" drugs did exactly the same things that the same drugs do today in our society: destroyed lives, crazed people running around. But this was neither illegal nor suppressed in ancient society. So, you had unregulated legal drug abuse everywhere, sold by pharmakeia, to blow people's minds. That's precisely who Jesus was addressing.

So, how do you translate that? "Pharmacists" would be the exact translation, but it would be completely misunderstood by almost everybody. Pharmacists go into the Lake of Fire? What? Why? They are just dispensers of medication. There was nothing medical about what pharmakeia did. They were peddling drug "magic" to get people high. "Magician", "enchanter" or "sorcerer" are the usual translations, but they completely miss the mark, and imply that Jesus was condemning actual magic, which does not exist. Secondly, it misses the point that Jesus was specifically talking about peddlers of DRUG "magic", who had all of the same terrible effects on people as drug dealing does today. Jesus was addressing a specific evil - drug peddling - and he used the specific word for that "pharmakeia".

Drug dealers are and were real, and produced all of the horrible effects on people and societies in 100 AD as they do today. Jesus put them on his list of the damned: pharmacists - pharmakeia. That is EXACTLY what the word means. Yes, it IS in the Bible, right there. Twice.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   10:49:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

your thread might be useless since you used modern translation and not the transpation from 400 years earlier. i guess you think god is week and cant preserve his word. King James is accurate. NIV is fullof errors. whatever "version" you used is infamilar and changes words.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   11:50:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)

"King James is accurate."

I agree. All these efforts to "modernize" the biblical language just opens The Bible up to misinterpretations by those with bad intentions...MUD

"NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"

Mudboy Slim  posted on  2023-10-07   11:54:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)

Actually, I use a Greek interlinear. I was looking directly at the Greek.

My thread IS useless here, however. Stony hearts.

If we were to go on, you may well see a great number of things you have not seen before. But all you're going to do is fight me on every one. So why bother expending the time on it?

I suppose I could just use the KJV, to please you. But then we would be missing the reality of what Jesus said. He wasn't talking about wizards in Revelation, he was specifically talking about people who blew people's minds with "magic" drugs, a REAL scourge in his age and ours. Wizards have never been a scourge in any age, because they don't really exist. But pharmakeia certainly did, and do.

You don't want to hear it.

And I'm tired of it already.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:04:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

My thread IS useless here, however. Stony hearts.

I said perhaps. Continue on.

I trust the KJV version completely. I don't trust the NIV because it makes Jesus a sinner. I know you're not using the NIV but it seems to put modern stuff like "drug dealers" in the text. So I stick with what I trust. Since it is the earliest or second earliest translation in English. Correct me if I am mistaken.

I don't think God would allow an erroneous version to appear for hundreds of years before someone could finally get it right. Since the Bible does say that it would be preached in the whole world.

So continue on. I'm sure we can all learn something here. We should all test our beliefs. So you are welcome to test me and show me where I am wrong. I know I'm not always right and I make mistakes. So I am willing to listen.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:16:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

well see a great number of things you have not seen before.

I'm sure we would. I'm pretty certain you have read the Bible more than me and I could learn something from you. But that doesn't mean I will always agree with you.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:20:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

But all you're going to do is fight me on every one.

Nope just when I disagree.

We already agreed on divorce.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:21:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Mudboy Slim (#6)

You are dead wrong.

The PROBLEM is that the Bible was written in Greek. Now, look at this particular case: the Greek is "pharmakeia" - pharmacists. It is a direct reference to the drug peddlers of the ancient world who sold drugs as "magic". But THAT magic had REAL effects, as heroin does on people. And in a society where it was not illegal, well, imagine if pharmacists were selling heroin, cocaine and meth casually every day? Think how bad the society would be. Ancient society was like that, BECAUSE drug dealers were free to operate. That's what "pharmakeia" - phermacists - WERE, that's what they DID, and that is what Jesus explicitly referred to.

So, now, look at the translation you are insisting on. The KJV translates "pharmacists" as "sorcerers" or "enchanters". That was the medieval mindset. There is no doubt that the ancients thought they were selling magic potions in their drugs - look how powerful the high is. But it was DRUGS they were selling - pharmacists - not general purpose spells and incantations and all that nonsense. Real drugs. Jesus focused on the drug dealers - the pharmacists.

If you read the archaic translations, you would think that Jesus was warning against wizards, sorcerers, as if that is a real thing. You can SEE in the Greek EXACTLY what he was really referring to - it's practically English.

So, are you willing to open your eyes to the TRUTH of what Jesus actually SAID?

Or are you going to be so narrow minded and traditional that you're going to stick with a translation from the same Greek into the English of the late Middle Ages, when they were burning witches!, and assert that the translation of "pharmacists" to "sorcerers" is truer to the meaning of Jesus than "drug dealers", which is what Jesus SAID. What is a "pharmacist".

Now, instead of actually dealing with the issue - that the old traditional translation here is MISTAKEN, and presents words that Jesus DID NOT SAY, and makes what he appears to say very weird - you're going to draw up into the dignity of the older English translation, because it's old.

This is EXACTLY what Jesus excoriated the Pharisees, Priests and Scribes for: loving their TRADITIONS more than Truth.

There is nothing wrong with the KJV. But it is just a translations, and SOME places in it, the words are really inapt. This is one very clear case.

But you people are going to fight for your TRADITIONS over the actual words of Jesus.

So how about I just use the Greek transliteration then: PHARMACISTS are damned to the lake of eternal fire. Not "sorcerers". "Pharmakeia" does not mean sorcerer in ancient or modern Greek. And it never did.

You will not yield the point will you?

Ask yourself: is this because I am clinging to my traditional language more than to the ACTUAL WORDS OF JESUS?

Yes, it is.

Jesus encountered it in life - the traditions of the Pharisees.

And his words are encountering the same thing again in our age, right here, from you.

Perhaps you PREFER to believe (wrongly) that Jesus meant "sorcerers", that Jesus was warning about magic users. That THIS was the problem of his age, not pharmacists selling heroin and blowing people's minds.

Go ahead and believe that. Nobody is going to stop you. Your tradition wins out. Jesus' actual words, they lose. You're ultimately poorer for it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:22:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

Wizards have never been a scourge in any age, because they don't really exist. But pharmakeia certainly did, and do.

Sure they exist. They used drugs.

You may disagree but I think modern medicine may be pharmakia. Just because it is prescribed by a guy in a white lab coat doesn't mean it isn't the same thing.

I'm not sure to be truthful but I think at least some of what they prescribe may be considered pharmakia or maybe all of it. As in we lack faith and rely on mans drugs. Just my honest thoughts.=

Carry on.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:24:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

And in a society where it was not illegal, well, imagine if pharmacists were selling heroin, cocaine and meth casually every day?

OxyContin.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

You can SEE in the Greek EXACTLY what he was really referring to

I'm sure the translators knew more about Greek than anyone on this forum. I also think God inspired and guided their writing.

You talked about Sorcery and drug use. That is the true meaning not the modern movies that make it into something else. I don't if I conveyed my thoughts good enough but I gotta go and will continue later.

Thanks.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#9)

Well, you ought agree with me on PHARMACISTS, because it's SO OBVIOUS it shouldn't be controversial. The Greek here is "pharmakeia", for God's sake!

The traditional translations have "sorcerers" and "enchanters" - which were things that people were worried about in the 1500s nd 1600s when the traditional translations were made. JESUS was worried about pharmacists, who openly sold heroin to the masses so they could experience the "magic" of the high, THEY believed it was magic, but we know what it is: drugs.

And the problem of drugs is very REAL. The problem of witches boiling their cauldrons and casting spells, the crazy ideas of 1500? Those never were real, and we stopped doing all of that before 1700, because it was obviously crazy and dark and evil - burning old women as witches was nuts. Opposing pharmacists selling heroin? THAT was real. It wasn't happening in 1500, but it WAS very much happening in the Greek east of Jesus' time, just as it happens today.

Your "disagreement" with me is refusing to see a word that's right THERE, in black and white on the printed page! "Pharmakeia" IS Pharmacist, and it's a drug dealer, not a "sorcerer".

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:29:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

But you people are going to fight for your TRADITIONS over the actual words of Jesus.

I "fight" for the inerrancy of scripture. Not traditions like praying to Mary or Mary never died which isn't in the scripture but is a catholic tradition.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

JESUS was worried about pharmacists, who openly sold heroin to the masses so they could experience the "magic" of the high, THEY believed it was magic, but we know what it is: drugs.

I don't really disagree with you here. I don't think I do. Except consider this. Magic isn't as in a magic trick but is the effects of the drugs.

So we are not really that far apart imo.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:31:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

And the problem of drugs is very REAL. The problem of witches boiling their cauldrons and casting spells, the crazy ideas of 1500?

And back to biblical times since those manuscripts used were prior to the 1500's.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   12:32:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)

In the 1500s? No they didn't. They did not have access to Greeks. They were English and Germans, translating Ancient Greek, without Greeks. It was from book learning.

Greeks can READ the Ancient Greek. It's archaic, but it's not a foreign language. We can read Chaucer and Shakespeare, because they are in our language. And educated Greeks can, with a little experience, read Ancient Greek, it's not a totally foreign tongue.

In 1500 the Western translators did not have access to Greeks. The Greeks were under the Turks at the time. WE have access to millions of Greeks. And our understanding of Greek is MUCH better than ANY Westerner's understanding of Greek in the Middle Ages.

So what you are left with is the claim that the KJV translation is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so is right in all cases anyway. You don't find that IN the Bible, of course. You just believe it.

WHY do you believe it?

Because you believe it.

But WHY? Based on what?

The Holy Spirit.

Ah, so God TELLS you that this is right then, so it's right.

God tells me differently.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:35:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A K A Stone (#17)

We're not far apart on that. The ancients THOUGHT it was magic, because of the effects, certainly. But JESUS didn't give a general prescription against all of the supersitions of the Greeks. He focused on those who sold the "magic" drugs and said they were headed into the fire. So, the general populace at the time was superstitious and wrong, but Jesus wasn't playing to their superstitions, he was focusing on the truth: the people peddling the "magic" drugs were bad people because of that, so off to the fire with them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:38:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: All (#19) (Edited)

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:41:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: All (#19)

But you know what? I'm just going to use the KJV translation from here on out, the words of Jesus as translated there. Where I have to make clarifications, as with "messengers" and "pharmacists", I will. But if the text of the translation is a stumbling block, I'll just remove that stumbling block and use your text. It scarcely matters.

But it IS more work. I already have all of the texts selected to present. Now I have to add the step of converting them from the basic translation from the Greek INTO the KJV. So everything will just take longer. Fine. Whatever.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:42:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#16)

Reproaching me for praying to Mary is odd, considering that I don't do it. You're preaching against a straw man.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:43:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#12)

Modern pharmacists are pharmakeia? Especially with regards to Oxycotin? Hmm. That may actually be true. How many lives are destroyed by LEGAL drugs? You make a valid point.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   12:45:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#8)

If it makes you feel better, I don't use the NIV. The translation often feels political. I don't even look at it.

I use a direct interlinear Greek to English, and compare it to an Eastern Orthodox translation into English by native Greek speakers.

The KJV is fine for most purposes. Of course, the KJV translators did not translate Revelation from the Greek, because the Textus Receptus manuscript of the Greek Bible they were using did not have it. Erasmus retro- translated Revelation from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, and they used that.

So the KJV's book of Revelation reposes upon the Latin Vulgate as its original source.

The translation I use is from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchal Text, the official Greek manuscripts of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So it's actually a direct translation by Greeks from a Greek original. The KJV is a translation from a Greek text that was prepared from a Latin original.

They pretty much say the same thing, of course, but the technicalities of the translation details are these.

Of particular note, because I focus on the words of Jesus, not the epistles of the Apostles, and not the Old Testament, the texts that I am looking at are rather small, only about 183 pages. And when it comes to Jesus, there are not many differences at all between textus receptus, Latin Vulgate, Patriarchal Text, KJV, Douai-Rheims, modern Catholic bible, etc. All of these are quite faithful to what Jesus said. The NIV? Well, I don't use it, so I can't really say. The parts I saw had some weird 'gender neutral" language in it that just seemed unnecessary. Is there a real theological difference between "Man does not live by bread alone", and "Humans do not live by bread alone"? No. But the fact that the translators felt compelled to inject modern political sensitivities into the text makes me wonder what else they did. I already really focus in on the meanings of words and the precise statements in Greek, and look at the English to see if it conveys the sense. I just don't need to see modern politics in my texts, and I don't need the additional levels of worry.

I know that ancient manuscripts, every single one, differs somewhat from every single other one. The importance to me is the sense of what Jesus said, Just Jesus, and fortunately those differences, while there are a few more lines of Jesus in some manuscripts compared to others, none of that additional or missing text really makes a difference. Jesus had a clear and consistent message, and that comes through loud and clear. THAT is where I think the spirit lies: what did Jesus MEAN. That's the key, and that's what I am ultimately working towards.

In that regard, "drug dealers" is important, because that's real. Superstitious worries about witches and such are just not real to me. THOSE people are just nuts, deluded, pretending to believe in the ridiculous (from which they derive no ACTUAL power, and never did). It's not the same thing, at all, as Jesus, the Son of God, who really was resurrected (as proven by the Shroud of Turin and the Oviedo Cloth). Jesus was the real deal. So I will listen to him. Anybody else? Well, to the extent they just parrot Jesus, sure. Where they depart from him, to the left or to the right, I focus on that departure, chastise it, and stick with Jesus. Just Jesus.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   13:04:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#14)

The real enemy

Is The golden calf culT

Coopting God - creaTion - science

The anTichrisT religion

EvoluTion - marxism - miracles

Turns all The zombies inTo liberals

EnlighTenment vic is a good example

ProsperiTy cargo culT pagan savage idioTs

Love
boris

If you ... don'T use exclamaTion poinTs --- you should'T be Typeing ! Commas - semicolons - quesTion marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2023-10-07   16:05:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: BorisY (#26)

Thanks, Boris.

Is your point that God did not create and does not rule the universe? I disagree.

I appreciate you calling me enlightened, I would like to think that I am.

I have no idea about the rest of it. Are you saying that I am in a golden calf antichrist religion?

That's funny, given that all I am doing is QUOTING CHRIST IN HIS OWN WORDS.

So, quoting Christ is "anti-Christ"? And I'M the idiot? Jeez Louise!

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   18:35:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: All (#20)

Revelation 16;15

(KJV)

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keeping his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."

(My Greek text)

"Lo, I am coming as a thief. Happy is he that is watching and keeping his garments, that he not be walking naked and they be observing his shame."

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   18:43:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: All (#28) (Edited)

n

(KJV). As many as I love I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent. Behold. I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him and sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches."

(My Greek literal interlinear translation)

"Whosoever I may be fond of, I am exposing and disciplining. Be zealous, then, and repent! Lo! I stand at the door and am knocking. If ever anyone should be hearing my voice and opening the door, I will also be coming in and dining with him and he with me. The one who is conquering, to him will I be granting to be seated with me on my throne, as I also conquer and am seated with my Father on his throne. Who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit is saying to the assemblies."

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   18:59:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#28)

Would you agree that happy and blessed are very different?

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-07   19:38:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)

Not in Greek, no. The word is "makarios" which is probably best expressed as "fortunate".

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   20:24:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: All (#31)

"Happy" is probably too light a translation of "makarios". "Joyful, because of great fortune", is the sense of the world. The very wealthy and the gods of the Greeks were "makarios", because they had everything. "Blessed" would be a good word in English, but the religious connotation is not limited to Jesus and God. The Greek gods and human plutocrats were said to me "makarious" - extreme joy, having not a care in the world, living the life of Reilly - these are the connotations of this word. It is happy, but REALLY happy, because of all of the...well...blessings that one had. "Ecstatic" might be a good English equivalent, although the root word of "ecstatic" is "ecstasy", which refers to a trance-like state, and that is NOT the connotation of "makarios".

So the connotation is one of extreme joy, such as a billionaire would enjoy. Applying to plebeian people full of faith, but without means, is pretty subversive of Jesus, really. He is comparing those who have him as being that of the wealthiest, the most powerful and secure, like the gods of Olympus even. A state of extended happiness that can only be enjoyed by the privileged few is offered to everybody who follows Jesus, even if they remain dirt poor in means. Having Jesus gives on transcendent joy. "Happy" downplays that (in English); 'makarios" is more than simply happiness. But "blessed" has a wholly religious connotation that "makarios" does not have.

The Germans have an expression: "Wie der Lieber Gott im Frankreich" - "to live like God in France" - which implies to have it made, to have it all, to be joyfully at ease, wanting nothing, in a place more beautiful than here. That's "makarios". The joy of the super rich and the gods, not a care in the world.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-07   22:19:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#30) (Edited)

Revelation 3:1-18

"And vnto the Angel* of the Church of the Laodiceans, write, These things saith the Amen, the faithfull and true witnesse, the beginning of the creation** of God:

I know thy workes***, that thou art neither cold nor hot, I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarme, and neither cold nor hot, I wil spew thee out of my mouth:

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and haue need of nothing: and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poore, and blinde, and naked.

I counsell thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest bee rich, and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakednesse doe not appeare, and anoint thine eyes with eye salue, that thou mayest see."

Notes:

*"Angelos" is simply restated here in its Greek form. In Greek, it means "messenger", and the messenger can be human or supernatural. It is a generic word for messenger, not a Greek word for a winged being. It CAN be a winged being, but the Greek does not imply that either way. Leaving the word untranslated, as "angel" implies the winged being to the English speaker 1500 years later, but that implication would not have been seen by the original Greek reader. He would have seen "messenger".

** There is an interesting Trinitarian issue here for those who care. Jesus describes himself directly as "the beginning of the creation of God", the very first created being. Trinitarians would vociferously object to that, claiming it was heresy. But Jesus himself says it, right here. It's obvious that the begotten son of God had to be begotten - perhaps before all time, so when he was begotten was not a "time." So, there was never a moment in "time" that Jesus did not exist, 'time" being a relative measurement between things, and there were no things before Jesus, as he was the beginning of the creation of things, the "first thing". But certainly in the sequence of things, before "time", there was the Father and there was not the Son. Then the Father begat the Son. The hieroglyphic sentences at the beginning of Genesis actually depict this quite graphically, but this is not common knowledge. Because Jesus says it, it is correct. Trinitarian belief needs to be corrected to this truth stated by Jesus.

***Works (or "workes"). The KJV translators were Anglicans, not Lutherans. We will see Jesus throughout revelation and the Gospels telling people they will be judged by their works, and the KJV faithfully reflects that. Luther's German translation, not the English, says " Faith ALONE", but that only appears in the German, not in the KJV, and certainly not in the original Greek. The KJV is chock full of works, such that it becomes unpleasant for the one who has bought Luther's argument that works are irrelevant, or that men can't do good works without faith in Jesus. The KJV says otherwise. Recall, please, that Jesus is not talking to the world, he is talking to the people who are already Christian, the church in Laodicea, and telling them that he will spew them out of his mouth, despite their faith. "Once saved always saved?" Nope. Not according to Jesus.

Final Note: I said I would use the KJV. This is the KJV. Later updaters CALL their updates "the KJV", in order to claim the prestige of the original, that what they have done is "the same thing." But the modern English "KJV" is not the same thing. If you believe that the KJV translation was inspired, then THIS is the only inspired text Modern, "KJVs" are new translations, not the KJV. So, I will stick with the KJV. Do I PERSONALLY think that the KJV is an "inerrant inspired translation"? No. But you do, so I've gone ahead and accepted that for these purposes. I'll use the KJV. There's nothing in the parts of the KJV that we will be reading - the words of Jesus - where the Greek conflicts with it. There are only little things, like "angel" or "blessed", words where, in Greek there's just one word that conveys a meaning, but by the time English developed there were two or more words that convey different meanings, one secular, and one religious. This was not the case in Greek. The English translators chose the religious meanings, which imparts something specific to the text that isn't really there in the original. But I am fine with the limited English meanings. Yes, what Jesus says encompasses that. He is actually saying MORE, because the Greek captures the secular meaning also.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-08   11:54:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)

Revelation 3:7-12 (KJV)

"And to the Angel of the Church in Philadelphia write, These things saith he that is Holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of Dauid, he that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy workes: behold, I haue set before thee an open doore, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word,* and hast not denied my Name.

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Iewes, and are not, but doe lie: behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feete, and to know that I haue loued thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keepe thee from the houre of temptation, which shall come vpon all the world, to try them that dwell vpon the earth.

Beholde, I come quickly, hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crowne.*

Him that ouercommeth,* will I make a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he shall goe no more out: and I wil write vpon him the Name of my God, and the name of the Citie of my God, which is new Hierusalem, which commeth downe out of heauen from my God: And I will write vpon him my New name."

Notes:

In three places I have marked with an asterisk the key theological points Jesus is making here. He knows their WORKS, and rewards them for that. And at the end, he says that he who OVERCOMES will have the prize. This is all works, acts, doing, triumphing by doing what one ought. He speaks of "keeping his word". We are going through his word, and we will find again and again and again Jesus talks about what he wants you to DO, and NOT DO. I used to have a Lutheran girlfriend, who went to a Lutheran school and was, with her sister, fully taught up in their doctrines, and believed them. Her attitude about sex (premarital, we were teenagers) was much more casual than mine. To her, it was not complicated. She was "born again", and therefore forgiven all her sins. "Once saved, always saved." I had not read the Bible yet, but was simply going on instinct. My instincts (which were from the Holy Spirit) told me that cannot possibly be right. As I got older, I did read the Bible, and honing in on Jesus, I see very clearly that it was not right, at all. That is simply not what he said.

Now, in saying that, I collide with vast swathes of Christianity. So what? How can anyone read what Jesus said to the church in Philadelphia, or the parts later in Revelation when he lists the sins that will get you thrown into the Lake of Fire, or his incessant urge to overcome, to conquer, and think that he is simply asking you to believe that he is the Son of God? Every single person IN all of the Churches to whom he sent letters believed that he was the Son of God! He's not writing to the world, he's writing to CHURCHES, for God's sake! He's writing to the angels of these Churches, the messengers who have the authority to teach what he said to others, and he's telling them point blank to keep doing their works, if they are doing good, and to stop doing works that are not good. He says he will judge you based on your works. He does not say he will judge you on your faith alone. Never.

This is the central point of my annoyance with Protestantism. The Protestants with whom I have discussed this and debated this in the past sound like Watchman, and my old girlfriend and her sister. But it's not just them. There is a stubborn certitude that what is required is a dramatic moment when on is "Born Again", and that THIS has to happen FIRST, and that WHEN it happens one "puts on the new man" and does not sin again, and starts doing good works (can't do them before. they don't count if you do), and that IF you fall, that is evidence that the original conversion was not really sincere.

Putting this as politely as possible, that's a great general theory of religion, of how everything works, and hundreds of millions of people believe that. It just is not what Jesus said, at all, ever, anywhere. A whole vast religion calls itself "Christian", but simply IGNORES Jesus and believes what they want to believe, which is very different, and rather contrary in spirit, to what he actually said.

My criticism of the Catholics and the Orthodox is different. They do not get this part wrong. They focus on Jesus pretty well. But then they add volumes, libtary wings! of ADDITIONAL stuff, that Jesus did NOT say, and say that it's all mandatory because the Church says so, and that the Church is the ultimate guide and guarantor of souls. And in the process, many of these traditions directly contradict Jesus. Most dramatically, all of the men and women murdered by the Church over the years as witches and heretics. Jesus said that MURDERERS have their part in the Lake of Fire. If you are burning a witch, you are a murderer by definition. Jesus did not say, "Well, except for witches...". In fact, when it came to sexual sin, of the sort that YHWH said deserved the death penalty in the Torah, Jesus said "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone. Fact is, killing somebody is a black act, pure evil. And if you're doing it in the name of Jesus, you have not only completely disregarded what he said, you have damned yourself to hell based on what he said!

The Catholic and Orthodox, and Protestant, Churches stopped killing people, but they won't admit they were wrong to have done it in the first place. They hedge, shuck and jive and say "different times". Jesus spoke these words 2000 years ago, long before the Churches existed to burn people. And yet they did burn people, LIBERALLY. The Lutherans burnt 100,000 people in Germany. The Calvininsts in Scotland burnt 20,000. This is not excusable, and I will never let up on it until my interlocutor admits to himself, to me, and to Jesus that historically their church was wrong - dead wrong - and did great evil.

And of course if the Church did great evil then, could be THAT wrong, they can still be that wrong about anything else. I assert that whenever they are doing anything that is different from what Jesus said, they are wrong. OF COURSE they are wrong! Jesus was the Son of God. Nobody else is. This is True Faith in Jesus' word: that you actually rely on it to obliterate the traditions of men that contradict it.

What he said to the Church in Philadelphia: I see what you do, and you do good. Keep doing good, don't let others lead you astray, and if you do good all the way to the end, I will reward you.

That's it, that's all. It dumbfounds me that Christians will argue - really quite viciously, for any other belief set. But they DO. Lord do they!

Hopefully you will agree with Jesus, and we can move out smartly and see him say the same things over and over and over again, really beat it in there, if there were any doubt. He's already said the same thing to two churches. One he praises, Philadelphia, and one he criticizes, threatening to spew them out of this mouth, to reject them - to reject a Church and turn his back on them - because their acts are lukewarm.

How can ANYBODY read this and say "Once saved, always saved? Works are unavailing? And Faith Alone?" It's perverse. It's directly contrary to what Jesus is saying, which is to say, if you're a Trinitarian, it's directly opposed to what God Himself said.

Why do that? It is incomprehensible to me. If you don't believe Jesus was Lord, or Divine, then don't follow him. But if you DO say he was, then why do you then substitute your own made-up doctrines for what he said? I just don't get it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-08   15:37:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

I will make them to come and worship before thy feete, and to know that I haue loued thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keepe

Looks as if there are some typos. Did you type it yourself? If you did that is a lot of work. I would cut and paste from Bible Gateway or something. You can always proof read and make sure it is accurate.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   15:58:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

But "blessed" has a wholly religious connotation that "makarios" does not have.

I just go with what the King James says.

But here is what google said

Makarios was the supreme blessing. Makarios is used in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) to describe the results of living right. It was the state of the righteous. If you enjoyed the blessings of this world, it was because you had been living right. You were being blessed.Jun 17, 2021

www.google.com/search? q=MAKAORIS+BLESSED+MEANING&oq=MAKAORIS+BLESSED+MEANING&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvb WUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDc0MTNqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   16:03:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: All (#36)

Also to your post 32. To me it seems when people try to reinterpret the Bible in better words. That means they don't have faith in God being able to give us his word.

All the mumbo jumbo is above my pay grade.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   16:05:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

In three places I have marked with an asterisk the key theological points Jesus is making here. He knows their WORKS, and rewards them for that. And at the end, he says that he who OVERCOMES will have the prize. This is all works,

I would say a prize above salvation. Still not of works lest any man should boast.

That is my take.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   16:13:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A K A Stone (#37)

The problem with that, quite simply, is that the Bible is in koine Greek, not English. If you’re reading it in English, you are reading a translators interpretation.

Those typos are not typos. I copied and pasted the actual King James Bible. It was written in the English of 1611,. The “King James” Bible in modern English is itself an interpretation of the King James Bible. They are not iidentical except for updated English. Some word meanings are said to have changed.

You wanted the KJV, I am using the actual KJV. If you tell me that some later translation, in the KJV style, is ALSO inerrant, as far as you are concerned, then I will use that specific text. So, you tell me which text you will accept, and I’ll use that one.

The issues here are not issues of translation. They are issues of accepting what Jesus said.

So, tell me which Bible to use. The KJV looks like it’s full of typos to you. So what do you want me to use?

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-08   16:14:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

I will continue to read what you write. You have put quite a bit of time and effort into this. Which is commendable.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   16:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

You wanted the KJV, I am using the actual KJV.

Fair enough.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   16:18:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

it happens one "puts on the new man" and does not sin again, and starts doing good works

Once you're saved you still sin. You don't never sin again. You repent when you sin.

You're going to lawyer and bury me in paperwork so to speak. But that's ok.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-08   16:22:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: A K A Stone (#38)

You have said “still not of works lest any man should boast”. Please cite that Scripture for me. Who says that?

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-08   16:50:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)

No I’m not. You say that men sin again - that is true. But large Christian denominations assert that you do not. If you were one of those, I would have to address it. But you aren’t so I don’t.

That’s exactly right - once people come to the realization that Jesus is the Son of God, and start listening to him, they know what is right and wrong in a cosmic sense. Now, they may have already known, for God is the God of all, and we do have the example of the society, which is largely Christian. Still, with the knowledge of Jesus’ identity, we then have a greater urge to see what he really said, to learn that. And fuzzy ideas become very clear. But we’re human, we do sin again and, knowing for sure now that we really have sinned, we need forgiveness, and Jesus will give that IF we at least try to stop sinning.

That’s all right and true, and we see the same thing (though no doubt we express that a bit differently, owing to being different people from different places.)

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-08   16:57:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: A K A Stone (#41)

I CAN use a more modern translation, a modernized KJV, so the spellings and verb tenses won’t be so weird. I do not want the text itself to be a stumbling block. You tell me what you want me to use, and I will use it. Jesus says essentially the same thing in all of them that are decent.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-08   16:59:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

sound like Watchman, and my old girlfriend and her sister.

To her, it was not complicated. She was "born again", and therefore forgiven all her sins. "Once saved, always saved."

I rejoice greatly to be counted among your girlfriend and her sister as once saved always saved.

Praise God that I do not have to hold on to God, but He holds on to me and will not let me go.

Certainly, I may lose my "crown" (rewards) but I will never lose my soul. Jesus said. "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee"

With all that is taking place right now in the ME my attention is fixed on the unfolding of prophecy. I don't have the mindset to discuss all the material you are presenting but will try to follow along with your efforts.

Question: how much failure to do "works" will cause you to lose your salvation? How does one know if he has lost his salvation?

watchman  posted on  2023-10-08   17:30:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: watchman (#46)

I don't look at it like you do. "Salvation" is not this shiny thing that one has or one loses.

Jesus asked us to do good and do right. He said to follow him and keep his word, and if you do that, you are doing good and doing right. And if you know his word, you know full well when you have stepped off the path and done wrong. It's not hard to know what Jesus wants. Just read him and he repeats it over and over and over again.

if you follow him, which he said meant keeping his word, you're good with him and he with you. So if you happen to die at any given moment, you are in his grace. If you choose not to follow him, to ignore the sick, the poor, the imprisoned, and just not care, he's told everyone that, in the end, he will say "I don't know you", no matter how much you cry out "Lord! Lord!"

'What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments? He who keeps my commandments loves me.'

So, that's my answer to your question. I don't worry about my salvation, because I am always worried about the poor and how I conduct myself. I use Jesus' word as the standard. So I'm with him, and he with me, exactly as he promised. And to me, that's that.

You have a completely different approach. That's ok, as long as you are actually doing what Jesus said to do. THAT is all that matters, according to him anyway. And given that it's called CHRISTianity, it seems to me that what Christ says is all that matters.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   7:57:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: All (#47)

And IF you step off the path and do wrong, Jesus tells you to repent and go back to doing right. He forgives. But it does you no good to "believe" in him if you don't keep his commandments, and his commandments require specific actions. He said all of this, multiple times. It's not even a little bit hard to understand.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   8:46:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#42)

Moving along - Revelation 3:1-5

And vnto the Angel of the Church in Sardis write, These things saith he that hath the seuen Spirits of God, & the seuen starres; I know thy workes, that thou hast a name that thou liuest, and art dead. Be watchfull, and strengthen the things which remaine, that are ready to die: for I haue not found thy works perfect before God.*. Remember therefore, how thou hast receiued and heard, and hold fast, and repent.* If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thiefe, and thou shalt not know what houre I will come vpon thee.

Thou hast a few names euen in Sardis, which haue not defiled their garments, and they shall walke with me in white: for they are worthy.

Hee that ouercommeth, the same shalbe clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the booke of life,* but I will confesse his name before my Father, and before his Angels."

NOTES: * I have starred the same argument again:

(1) I see your works and they are very imperfect.

(2) Remember what I said and turn back - repent! - and do what I said to do.

(3) Or your name, which WAS written in the book of life, I will blot out instead.

This is not once saved, always saved. It's the opposite. It's: you heard me and followed, and so were written in the book of life. But now you're not following, and if you don't go back and do what I told you to do, I will blot out your name from the book of life where it currently is.

This is the gaining of salvation, but then losing it because one does not persevere in doing what Jesus commanded.

Why kick at the goad? Just do what Jesus said to do, and it will go well for you.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   10:45:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.

Yes nobody has the works to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It seems to me it says to repent because your works aren't there. It doesn't say get your works better.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   13:52:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49) (Edited)

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   13:59:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: A K A Stone (#50)

Ok, but let's not skip over this part:

"Thou hast a few names euen in Sardis, which haue not defiled their garments, and they shall walke with me in white: for they are worthy."

There are those in Sardis who works ARE good enough, who have NOT done evil. It isn't impossible to follow Jesus' words. He does not demand things that people cannot do, and he often notes those who do them. His yoke is easy and his burden is light.

In Philadelphia, the whole church was walking in his word, and he did not rebuke them. He merely told them to keep doing it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   14:47:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Vicomte13 (#47)

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Are you born again?

watchman  posted on  2023-10-09   15:34:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

Or your name, which WAS written in the book of life, I will blot out instead.

Your words are error. You have reworded the scripture to fit your argument.

The Chruch at Sardis was a "dead church" full of unsaved people. The "dead" church goers were NEVER written in the book of life. There were a few saved souls, however, who WERE written in the book of life and those are the ones who will never be blotted out...once saved, always saved.

You, Vic, are a dead church goer who goes to a dead church. Your name is not yet written in the book of life.

watchman  posted on  2023-10-09   15:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: watchman (#54)

I did not change the words of Scripture. I quoted the 1611 King James Version verbatim.

Your argument is with Jesus, not with me.

See, this is precisely why I do this: I just quote Jesus, nobody else. Your beef is with what Jesus said, because it does not mesh with what you believe.

You're attacking me because you don't like what is written, but those words were dictated by Jesus, not by Stephen.

You can rail at me all you like. I'm sticking with Jesus.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   16:00:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: A K A Stone (#51)

That's nice. But he's quoting a letter of John. If you want me to listen, then quote Jesus. I will listen to Jesus. Jesus said all that needs to be said, and he's clear as a bell.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   16:02:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

This is a new low for you.

watchman  posted on  2023-10-09   16:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: watchman (#57)

Quoting Jesus verbatim is a new low? Go figure.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   16:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: A K A Stone (#51)

Continuing on - Revelation 2:18-29

And vnto the Angel of the church in Thyatira, write, These things saith the Sonne of God, who hath his eyes like vnto a flame of fire, and his feete are like fine brasse:

I know thy works,* and charitie, and seruice, and faith, and thy patience, and thy workes,* and the last to bee more then the first.*

Notwithstanding, I haue a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Iezebel, which calleth herselfe a Prophetesse, to teach and to seduce my seruants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed vnto idoles.

And I gaue her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not.

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her, into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

And I will kill her children with death, and all the Churches shall know that I am hee which searcheth the reines and hearts: and I will giue vnto euery one of you according to your workes.*

But vnto you I say, and vnto the rest in Thyatira, as many as haue not this doctrine, and which haue not knowen the depthes of Satan, as they speake, I will put vpon you none other burden: But that which ye haue already, hold fast till I come.*

And hee that ouercommeth, and keepeth my workes* vnto the ende, to him will I giue power ouer the nations:

(And he shall rule them with a rod of yron: as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shiuers:) euen as I receiued of my Father. And I will giue him the morning starre.

He that hath an eare, let him heare what the Spirit saith vnto the Churches.

_________________

NOTES

* Works here, works there, so many works! And he mentions the bad works of a slutty woman, while calling her to repent - to stop doing those works. But the rest of the people? He tells them to keep on doing what they're doing - those works - and endure to the end.

This is very clear and straightforward. I told you what to do, so do it, and if you persevere to the end in doing it, I will give you life eternal. Nothing hard to understand about that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   16:43:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Vicomte13 (#56)

Yes im quoting from the Bible. Hiw will you k n ow when your works are good enough to make you worthy?

Do you have to have works to enter Heaven?

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   17:07:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Vicomte13 (#58)

Or your name, which WAS written in the book of life

Show me where Jesus said that the "dead" Sardis church goers are written in the book of life.

I will blot

You took out the word "not". Jesus says He will NOT blot out, referring only to those who are alive in Christ

watchman  posted on  2023-10-09   17:11:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: A K A Stone (#60)

I know that if I did what Jesus said to do that I will have eternal life, because Jesus said that. He laid out what he wants specifically, and told everybody to keep his word, his commandments. He said if you do, he will be with you and you with him. It's not hard to understand.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   17:57:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: watchman (#61) (Edited)

I copied and pasted right out of the KJV, hoss. I didn't change anything. Is there something in error, then, in the KJV?

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   17:59:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: watchman (#61)

I was curious about what you were on about, so I went back and looked at the passage. It is this:

"Hee that ouercommeth, the same shalbe clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the booke of life,"

What is hard to understand about this?

Jesus blots people's name out of the book of life. He won't do so to those in Sardis who overcome - who resist and keep his word. He'll cloth THEM in white raiment and leave their names in the book of life.

But what about those in the Church of Sardis who DON'T overcome, who DON'T keep his word?

They will not wear the white raiment, and he will blot their names out.

That is the implication of saying he WON'T blot out those who do as he says, that whoever DOESN'T, DOES get blotted out of the book of life. Their names are there because they are in the Church, but their behavior causes him to blot them out.

How can this be read any other way? Seriously.

I said before that you have a reading comprehension problem, and I really think you do.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   18:25:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Vicomte13 (#64)

You failed to account for this verse.

Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Christ differentiates between those who are "dead", and those (few) who are "worthy" (saved).

"He who overcomes" is an invitation to those who are "dead" to become saved, to have their names written in the book of life.

"I will not blot out" does not imply that He has, or will ever, blot out someone's name. It is merely away of stating an assurance of salvation.

Revelation mentions the Book of Life seven times with one other mention in Philippians:

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Note on Revelation 22:19:

God shall take away his part out of the book of life - Perhaps there is here an intimation that this would be most likely to be done by those who professed to be Christians, and who supposed that their names were in the book of life. In fact, most of the corruptions of the sacred Scriptures have been attempted by those who have professed some form of Christianity. Infidels have but little interest in attempting such changes, and but little influence to make them received by the church. It is most convenient for them, as it is most agreeable to their feelings, to reject the Bible altogether. When it said here that "God would take away his part out of the book of life," the meaning is not that his name had been written in that book, but that he would take away the part which he might have had, or which he professed to have in that book. Such corruption of the divine oracles would show that they had no true religion, and would be excluded from heaven. (Barnes)

The note addresses your condition...one who merely professes Christianity. But even more, that you took a word out of the Holy Scripture (the word "not") which changed the whole truth of God's saving grace.

watchman  posted on  2023-10-09   19:35:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: watchman (#65)

Jesus said he would not blot out from the book the names of those who kept their garments and continued to follow him. This means that Jesus could, and did, blot out the names of those who did not.

You say he never could. He says otherwise.

I'll stick with.the plain reading of Jesus.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   23:12:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Vicomte13 (#66)

You never answered if you have to have works to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why are you afraid to answer that directly? So go ahead and answer.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   23:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: A K A Stone (#60) (Edited)

Continuing - Revelation 2: 1-7

Vnto the Angel of the church of Ephesus, write, These things saith he that holdeth the seuen starres in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seuen golden Candlesticks:

I know thy workes, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not beare them which are euil, and thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them lyers:

And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my Names sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

Neuerthelesse, I haue somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first loue.

Remember therfore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and doe the first workes, or else I will come vnto thee quickly, and will remoue thy Candlesticke out of his place, except thou repent*

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Hee that hath an eare, let him heare what the Spirit saith vnto the Churches: To him that ouercommeth will I giue to eate of the tree of life, which is in the middest of the Paradise of God.*

NOTES

* It's the same thing as already noted: Jesus is talking to a church again - believers - and he acknowledges their works, faith, endurance. But he notes their loss of love, and warns them that he will remove their "candlestick", which he describes in Chapter One, unless they turn back - repent.

And again he notes that those who overcome will be in Paradise.

Same message: you are a church, you believe in me, but I said to follow me by keeping all of my commandments, but you have stopped doing that. Unless you repent, I will throw you out. Those who do keep my commandments and overcome will join me in Paradise.

Same message, expressed once again. This is not "Once saved, always saved." These people are already a church, a community of believers. Rather, this is Jesus saying, as we've seen him say to the other churches: Keep my commandments, do what I say to the end, and you will be with me in Paradise. And if you don't, I will throw you down. It's direct and simple, and plain as day.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-09   23:23:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

You don't believe all of the book of revelation. So this is for you.

Revelation 22 v19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   23:33:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

ou never answered if you have to have works to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why are you afraid to answer that directly? So go ahead and answer.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   23:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Vicomte13 (#64)

I was curious about what you were on about, so I went back and looked at the passage. It is this:

"Hee that ouercommeth, the same shalbe clothed in white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the booke of life,"

What is hard to understand about this?

Jesus blots people's name out of the book of life. He won't do so to those in Sardis who overcome - who resist and keep his word. He'll cloth THEM in white raiment and leave their names in the book of life.

But what about those in the Church of Sardis who DON'T overcome, who DON'T keep his word?

Here is what AI says

The verse you are referring to is Revelation 3:5, which states, “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels” 1. This verse is often interpreted to mean that those who remain faithful to Jesus will not have their names removed from the book of life. However, it does not necessarily imply that Jesus would remove the names of those who did not keep their garments and continued to follow him. Rather, it emphasizes the importance of remaining faithful to Jesus and persevering in one’s faith 1.

I hope this helps clarify your question.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   23:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   23:47:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

On one level, this might sound entirely reasonable. Why not stick to the words of Jesus if we find ourselves confused or troubled? And what serious believer has not been confused or troubled by something in the Bible? But this way of thinking does not lead where many evangelical Protestants — perhaps especially those who faith has been shaped by a biblicist hermeneutics — might expect. If we take this path, we will end up ignoring the very basis for the claims of the New Testament about Jesus: eyewitness testimony.

It’s not hard to see why this is so. Those who followed Jesus during his public ministry spoke about and eventually wrote down testimony about Jesus’s life and teachings. Whatever one’s view of the shape of oral tradition and theological reflection among the first Christians, their decision to put what they witnessed in writing is the only reason we have the gospels at all, and it is undoubtedly the reason we have four of them. Luke, for example, discusses his investigative work of compiling eyewitness testimony in the prologue to his gospel, and, as Richard Bauckham demonstrated in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, all four of the gospels base their authoritative accounts on the information provided by eyewitnesses.

Unlike the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon, the Bible does not claim to have been dictated by God to an isolated individual through a series of visions or any other non-public experience. The Bible did not fall from heaven. In the testimonies about Jesus, including even the resurrection itself, we are confronted with irreducibly public events, things quite a few people personally claimed to have seen.

Eyewitnesses, especially the Apostles themselves, attempted to relay not only the particular words Jesus spoke, but also his deeds, his ethical teachings and the context and meaning of it all to those who came after them. In other words, we cannot separate the words of Jesus from the other eyewitness testimony, as if his words could simply be detached from their context and applied to our lives in whatever way seems right to us. Instead, we are totally dependent, whether for the words Jesus spoke or for the content of our faith, upon the eyewitness testimony of those who first believed.

There are at least three connected reasons why this is the case. First, the apostles and those who wrote the New Testament were in a better position to understand the context for Jesus’s preaching, sayings and commands than we are. They were Jesus’s friends and students, and they knew Aramaic and koine Greek better than anyone alive today. However positively we feel about the advances of biblical criticism, science and culture, it would be foolhardy to simply subordinate what they wrote about Jesus to our interpretation of Jesus’s words.

Second, we don’t possess every word Jesus ever said. The four gospels, though they give us what we need to follow Jesus, only tell us about a tiny part of his life and teachings. As John recognised, if the apostles and eyewitnesses had tried to write down everything they had experienced with Jesus, “the whole world couldn’t contain the books” (John 21:25). One cannot help but think that Jesus further elucidated the teachings that make up the Sermon on the Mount for his disciples, told parables we know nothing about, and gave further instruction on topics relevant to the disciples’ lives. Undoubtedly, Jesus also laughed, joked, ate with and encouraged scores of people who followed him, people who from our limited perspective are lost to history. Therefore, we should never think that we today have a clearer, more comprehensive understanding of Jesus’s will for us than his first followers. They simply had more to go on than we do.

Finally, the fact is that we only know about Jesus’s life, death and resurrection through the testimony of the apostles and first Christians. God did not choose to give Western Christians living in 2020 unmediated access to those events, which happened in a very different time and place. The witness of the Spirit alone, apart from the proclamation of the gospel by other humans, is not how God chose to reveal himself to us. Rather, it seems fair to say that if God had not moved the apostles and first Christians to write, to testify to what they had seen and heard, we would know nothing about Jesus. We simply don’t have unmediated access to Jesus’s words apart from those who first walked with him and apart from the Church that now proclaims him.

Red Letter Christians, including Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne, are rightly troubled when evangelicals and other Christians seem to lose sight of who Christ is or downplay the significance of Jesus’s explicit commands. Claiborne, for example, gets at this central concern in a video where he says:

When we lose the centrality of Jesus, we end up talking a whole lot about things Jesus didn’t say anything about, and we don’t say much about the things Jesus had a whole lot to say about. So Red Letter Christians is about a movement that wants a Christianity that looks like Jesus again and is known for love again.

Notice, however, that here Claiborne is doing more than gently exhorting us to heed the red letters in our Bibles. He seems to be asking his hearers to pay less attention or perhaps even ignore the black letters, including the testimony of those eyewitnesses who “saw his glory” (John 1:14). In a post on 1 April 2011, Campolo made this move explicitly:

As the Red Letter Christian movement came to be known, I realized it would never be accepted. This is because many Christians don’t really like the God that is revealed in Jesus Christ. They want the God that is in the black letters.

The logical problem with this position is that the words of Jesus, like the rest of the New Testament, were filtered, contextualised and interpreted by the eyewitnesses and the New Testament writers. We simply cannot get back behind the text. Thus we cannot understand the red letters or the centrality of Jesus without also heeding the black letters, the words of those who walked and talked with him, ate with him and sat under his teaching, the words of those whom Jesus entrusted with the gospel. Claiborne’s exhortation and Campolo’s lament both imply that we don’t need those first witnesses and that, once we have the words of Jesus, we somehow have unmediated access to Christ’s teaching apart from their testimony.

Why would Red Letter Christians stake out what seems to be a logically untenable position? Two weeks after the election in 2016, Campolo and Claiborne wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that offers some clues. In the wake of President Trump’s victory, they wrote, “much of the good that went by the name ‘evangelicalism’ has been clouded over; now a new movement is needed to replace it.” Evangelicalism used to have moral credibility, the authors argue, but after more than 80 per cent of white evangelicals who voted in the presidential election backed a candidate unrepentant of several significant moral failings, its reputation is in tatters.

As Campolo and Claiborne would have it, however, Trump’s election was only the dramatic conclusion to evangelicalism’s moral fall, not its beginning. One can discern traces of the bad reputation evangelicalism would develop in the broader culture after evangelical leaders aligned themselves with the Republican Party. Many Americans, they write, “came to see Christians — and evangelicals in particular — as anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environment and anti-immigrant and as the champions of guns and war.” In particular, evangelicals now have the reputation as a movement that cares about only two issues, abortion and gay marriage. On both counts, many Americans might also employ the prefix Campolo and Claiborne used to describe evangelicals: “anti-.”

Since Jesus never explicitly addressed either abortion or gay marriage in the gospel accounts, Red Letter Christians often think it better to downplay, ignore, or even oppose the typical evangelical and Catholic stances on these issues. After all, Christians have sometimes been implicated in homophobia. We have at times lost sight human experiences unlike ours even as we fought for the human rights of the unborn. The implications of Claiborne’s programmatic statement for Red Letter Christians are, we must confess, at least partially true: the Christianity of evangelicals has not always looked like Jesus.

But by trimming inconvenient or difficult parts of the testimony of the first Christians, Red Letter Christians have not succeeded in offering us a way to make our Christianity more like Jesus. Instead, they tacitly reject the very words that provide the necessary context for the words in red. To the degree that they set aside the words of Paul and Peter, the Pentateuch and the Apocalypse, Red Letter Christians not only make a logical — or, perhaps, an epistemological — error. They also risk leading evangelicals and other Protestants toward a Christianity that looks less like the Jesus the first Christians knew and more like a Jesus fashioned in our own image.

www.abc.net.au/religion/j...-logical-and-theological- problem-with-red-letter/12215602

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-09   23:57:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Vicomte13 (#68) (Edited)

First nugget right before 2 min. 18:45 about

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-10   0:11:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

John 5:24 King James Version 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

IS PASSED FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-10   0:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

This is what Satan is using to trick Christians into doubting God. You can't trust Gods word you have to look up the greek and throw away 98 percent of the Bible or probably more.

Not saying you aren't saved. Not saying you are satan. Just saying you seem to have PRIDE because you pick and choose which Bible verses you believe.

You're seriously smart no doubt you have a good education.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-10   0:38:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30I and my Father are one.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-10   0:39:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Vicomte13 (#68)

I do think this though. I think if you are saved you are probably going to have some works. Since you are a new creature. But your salvation isn't because of the works, the works just show that you are changed.

If you forget to repent about something or don't get a chance to and you get hit by a car does that mean you go to hell?

If not how many sins would you have to not repent for?

Or is there some other basis that you can explain.

Thanks.

A K A Stone  posted on  2023-10-10   0:43:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: A K A Stone (#67)

You tell me.

"All the Churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reines (kidneys) and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

"Remember therfore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and doe the first workes, or else I will come vnto thee quickly, and will remoue thy Candlesticke out of his place, except thou repent."

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works to the end, to him will I give power ouer the nations:"

"Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God."

"I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my Name."

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot, I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth:"

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   7:57:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: A K A Stone (#73)

I started with Revelation, with a series of letters that Jesus dictated to John and told him to send to the seven Churches. Revelation closes with a threat from God of damnation to anyone who changed a word. Of all of the texts in the Bible, Jesus' letters to the Churches are the only ones said to be dictated, verbatim.

He is not addressing crowds, as during his life, and these words are not the remembered words of years ago, spoken in parables to various non-believers and believers alike as are contained in the Gospels.

No, THESE words are dictated by Jesus, resurrected and ascended to heaven, and speaking from the throne room of God, to John whom he has brought there. And the dictated words are not addressed to unbelievers. They are addressed directly to the churches themselves, to the assemblies of believers all across Asia Minor. And in case there is any doubt, Jesus, from Heaven, spoke the words to seven separate Churches. The words are consistent.

Against Jesus, what do I have? 20th and 21st Century men on an AI site carping in defense of their doctrines, and suggesting that I am picking and choosing? Well, they could pick and choose, from Revelation itself, to show me that I am wrong. Or rather, they can't, because I've quoted Jesus EXTENSIVELY from Revelation, to make the point he clearly made. They have not. They have said, effectively, that his words don't matter because of some "totality".

I'm not done yet. I'm going to go through all of the Gospels too, and extensively quote Jesus.

And they will still carp because I'm not quoting some prophesy in the Old Testament, which says something different. The effect of what they do is to nullify whatever Jesus said, however extensively, at every turn. They don't quote Jesus, but draw themselves up in their scholarship.

That don't impress me much. If you want to argue with me, then quote Jesus back at me.

Nobody ever does that, because they CAN'T.

That is why I know that I am right, and they are full of it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   8:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: A K A Stone (#76)

I quote the Greek to be PRECISE. Jesus did not speak English. English did not exist until 1100 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and wasn't used for the KJV until 1600 years afterwards. The English translations all vary. So I use the Greek to get at the point.

I'm not discarding the Bible, I am going for the gold in the Bible, what Jesus said.

Are you saying that was God Incarnate said directly from Heaven, in Resurrection, is of equal importance to what somebody else said somewhere else in the Bible, even where they contradict?

So, then, the Bible is God, and Jesus is not? And God is a God of contradictions? I reject this. It is presumptuous in the extreme. Modern scholars don't know better than Jesus.

Moses: Eating pork and shellfish makes you unclean, and you shall be cut off from the people.

Jesus: Nothing that a man puts in his mouth makes him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth.

This is a contradiction. I say Jesus trumps, because he's God's Son.

You? Scholars will impose a THIRD thing, not in the Bible, made up 1900 years later because they don't like some things Jesus said, and prefer the old wine. They say that not eating shellfish and pork was merely CEREMONIAL law, and does not count as a moral precept. God never said that in either testament. "Christian" scholars make it up.

Why?

Because they want to eat pork and shelfish, but they want to judge (Jesus says no), and they don't want to do all of that economic giving that Jesus demanded.

In short, all of the scholarship that seeks to diminish and dissolve what Christ said is anti-Christ. Obviously.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   8:23:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: A K A Stone (#77)

The churches to whom Jesus sent the letters in Revelation were all his followers. They believed in him, that's why they were in the Churches. No man could pluck them out of Jesus' hand. But each man himself can choose to leave Jesus' hand. Judas did.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   8:25:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: A K A Stone (#78)

I do think this though. I think if you are saved you are probably going to have some works. Since you are a new creature. But your salvation isn't because of the works, the works just show that you are changed.

If you forget to repent about something or don't get a chance to and you get hit by a car does that mean you go to hell?

If not how many sins would you have to not repent for?

Or is there some other basis that you can explain.

Thanks.

Here is the problem. I am going to really try to do this as gently as possible, because I see you are really seeking and struggling with this. Unfortunately, I am a clumsy man and I may wound with what I say. It is not my intent at all.

I see your question this way: there is a great structure in your mind of how things work, built up by years of Church and reinforcement by people who believe a certain way, and see a certain way, and who see certain things as problems that have to be addressed, because you all have been taught to think like that, and even think that thinking a different way is sinful.

This is parallel to the priests, scribes and Pharisees who went to Jesus - not the bad ones trying to kill him, but true seekers, like Nicodemus, who went to visit Jesus outside of the walls of the city and who admitted that Jesus was doing things that could only be explained by the power of God. but Nicodemus could not understand, he could not grasp it, because some of the things that Jesus was saying were not in his tradition, and some things contradicted it. And yet Nicodemus believed that Jesus was doing things with divine power, not with the power of Satan, as other harsher priests said.

Part of Jesus' explanation was to ask Nicodemus rather pointedly 'You are a teacher of Israel, yet you do not know these things?' Jesus then basically explained how the Holy Spirit works. It was difficult for Nicodemus. And yet we see that, at the end, Nicodemus, understanding only dimly and incompletely, came to follow Jesus, for he was the priest that gave the death rites to Jesus in his tomb after this crucifixion, when almost all others had run away and abandoned him.

I am not being harsh to you. I see you struggling against this framework you have been taught and believed most of your life, and defended against attackers.

I am not an attacker. Not at all. And I can't teach you. I don't really have answers to some of your questions, because I find myself arguing against centuries of tradition, and who am I?

What I would say, instead of trying to answer your questions directly, is to simply tell you to read Jesus, all of Jesus. If Jesus doesn't persuade you, then just walk away from the religion, because it cannot be true. If Jesus himself, the bright morning star at the center of it all, is unpersuasive, who can persuade you? Some minister? No.

But if you focus on Jesus, Just Jesus, you will find answers to the things important to him. Many of the demands of your own framework will fall away, because they were not put there by Jesus in the first place, but by men, and you are not answerable to men. You are only answerable to him.

I would say truly that if you immerse yourself completely in Jesus, just Jesus, that the answers will come to you from the Holy Spirit, and that part of the answers is that Jesus didn't say that, so the complicated questions of men, that derive from their starting positions, really just don't apply, because Jesus didn't talk about those things.

That is the answer. I could try to go through and answer every challenge of your religion, but who am I? I think the better answer is to focus on Jesus, HE is the teacher.

Of course, then, when I read somebody say that focusing on the "red-letter words", on what Jesus said, is wrong, I think "Blind Pharisee! What are you AFRAID of? That Jesus will teach things that don't fit your doctrine?" Yep.

So, until things get too hot in here, too abusive to me, I will keep on quoting Jesus. I'm not quoting every single word, because some of what he says doesn't address what we are talking about (none of it contradicts, however). Jesus is good enough for me, and has to be good enough for anybody I'm talking to.

If I were just encountering people like Watchman - so hysterical in his abuse, unable to read well or listen to anything - I would just shake the dust off my sandals and leave. But where there is sincere questioning, there is hope.

I think Jesus answers your question about sins, and does so in a way that is so much pithier and better than me. I would just say: read him, let him tell you. It will become obvious.

In my own mind, I would say that the upshot of Jesus is that you don't count the sins, or worry about them. If you're following Jesus, you will know immediately when you are moving into bad territory. He gave us a list of things that will end in the lake of fire: murder, lying, sexual immorality, cowardice, idolatry, pharmakeia. I don't worry about the whole list, because there are many things on that list that are not me and never were. Lying and sexual immorality? Yeah, those are definitely traps I have fallen into. Jesus says to change my mind, to turn back, "repent". So that's the whole answer for me. He didn't ask for more. He positively asks for a life devoted to helping others. I do what I can. That's how I see it.

I would tell you to just read Jesus, let HIM teach you. If you do that, you will probably end up very close to where I am, and you will begin to see starkly the sheer anger and rage roaring in these other theologies that claim to be Christian, but that blot out Christ with virtually anything else, because Christ alone doesn't say what they want to do.

That is all.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   9:00:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: A K A Stone (#78) (Edited)

People who are not consciously Christians nevertheless do good works, and Jesus credits them with these works.

'He who gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones will not go without his reward.'

The Good Samaritan.

One does not have to overtly believe in God to do good works, and be credited by Jesus for it.

Jesus judges based on what you do. Remember those who cry out "Lord, Lord", but who did not heal the sick, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, feed the poor. Jesus sent them into the Lake of Fire. It is simply not enough to believe something about Jesus. He said he would judge you by what you do right there in Revelation: 'I judge each by his works.' Believing in Jesus should make you do good things, because that's what he teaches you to do. But if you don't do good things, knowing that Jesus is God won't do you any good. The demons know that too, and tremble.

In the end, once all of the mental gymnastics are done, what matters is what you DO with it - your works. If you don't do anything with it, or do bad things, or - inspired by power - do WORSE things (medieval Christians deciding to burn people as witches in the name of God), you are screwed. Jesus wants you to believe in him in order to be able to hear his word and do it. His word is all about doing good things for people.

Unless you are a hopeless cripple, the works are inextricable from the belief.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   9:59:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: All (#84)

It is time for a course correction.

I have gotten pulled off the main track, which was to present Jesus in his own words, over into many sidebars. While some of those are interesting my point here to present what JESUS said, not me. Where there are questions, I should answer with Jesus.

Jesus is pithy.

I am much less so, and who cares what I think? Why would they?

If Jesus' own words don't convince you, mine won't either.

So, going forward, my intention is for there to be a lot less of me, and a lot more of Jesus. He is the Lord, after all.

Vicomte13  posted on  2023-10-10   11:45:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Vicomte13 (#83)

encountering people like Watchman - so hysterical in his abuse

Now I know why people cross to the other side of the road when they see me.

watchman  posted on  2023-10-10   12:03:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com