Jesus was a pacifist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a few flaws in the logic of your song...

Sorry, I knew it was a prophet, but it wasn't Amos. It's in Ezekial 16:49-50. I thought it was Amos because he talks about God destroying all sorts of things.

I like to split hairs over the details because I hope that my doing so will make people think about things a little deeper. I don't want to change anyone's beliefs, I just get annoyed that people go to church and blindly believe everything they're told. Just my opinion, but something as important to people as their religion should at least be worth thinking about for themselves.

Let me know what it is. I'm always interested in reading more.

 

<THREADJACK> Hey! Welcome back, Richard!!! How's the neck, buddy? Interested in doing some mini racing, or flat tracking?

 

Good to be back Jay. The neck is good with the Frankenstein bolt marks on my forehead as a reminder. My foot bothers me more than anything else. Not painful, just annoying discomfort.

I'm actually looking for an endurance ride. I miss it but I'm not willing to go out and buy all the stuff needed to support my own effort again.

The Lord showed me what my priorities in life should be. Painful lesson.

 

Don't feel alone

Don't feel alone about learning that hard way. A friend of mine once said "We never really mature until our backs are against the wall."

My back was against the wall once too. It was very painful as well..........but as the Mastercard commercial says the result was priceless.

 

Well now you've done it. How can you be comfortable interpretting the mind of God (regret) but not be comfortable interpretting the meaning of a common word (hosts)? You must one of them there intellectuals.

As far as your thoughts not agreeing with anybody elses, I'm gonna have to go back to the fear thing. I believe that what I was seeing was fear or pride or both. Fear of being caught thinking or believing the same thing as anyone else! Or the pride of thinking you are smart enough not to. Either way, it backs you into a corner, since to be truly unique in this regard one has to become nothing; nothing that anyone else is or ever was. It's a bad deal and I don't recommend it.

 

Because emotions change less over time than meanings of words. The only problem with my interpretation is that it's GOD who's having the emotion, so I could very well be wrong.

Nope, it's definitely not fear of being like everyone else or even NOT being like everyone else. That fear went away when I graduated high school (but even long before then I was an oddball ). I just think that the biggest part of religion is a very personal thing and subject to individual interpretation (within reason).

And I'll leave you (weekend at CMP) with something to research/think about. In the early days of the Bible, there isn't such a clear cut line between the "forces" of good and evil. In other words, God is just as responsible for bad things as for good things. After the Exile, the Jews came into contact with the Persians (Cyrus liberated them from Bablyon), who's gods were divided between good and evil. After that time, the Bible doesn't equate bad things as coming from God anymore. Just something interesting I was reminded of today.

 

Re: Don't feel alone

In my case the Lord decided to break my body against the wall. Literally.

 

I don't believe that human sperm had anything to do with the conception of Jesus. If you look at Genesis 3:15, considered to be one the first prophesies of Jesus, it says:

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."

Why not enmity between "you and man" and between "your seed and his seed"? Children are always described as the seed of man. In Matthew 1:16 Joseph is described as the begotten son of Jacob, in other words biologically conceived son of Jacob. In Luke, Joseph is described as the son of Heli. The Greek word used in this passage is "nomizo". which means 'to lay down a thing as law,to hold by custom,or usage" Luke's genealogy identifies Joseph as the legal son-in-law of Heli, by his marriage to Mary, Heli's daughter. Also, Matthew was originally written in Hebrew to the Jews. To the Jews it would have been extremely important to show that Jesus had a legal claim to the throne of Israel. So it shows the lineage through Joseph. Prophesy also states that Jesus would be of the line of David, or from his seed. If Joseph was not the natural father, the bloodline had to be shown through Mary, so that might explain her lineage in Luke.

Legal adoptions were not carried out in the time of Jesus?

That's being a bit unfair. The birth narrative is only given in two gospels. Matthew and Luke, which many people, discounting those that put a lot of faith in "Q", believe are the oldest gospels. Perhaps Mark felt it was enough to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This would mean that he would have fulfilled all prophecy, including the virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14) John made it clear who he thought Jesus was in the first chapter of John.
I also believe that in 285 B.C. the Greek Septuagint translators probably were much closer to the nuances of ancient Hebrew, and made the right choice in choosing the word "virgin'in their translation of the word "almah" or young unmarried girl. Isaiah said that God would give the people a sign, the birth of a child to a young girl out of wedlock I don't believe would be anything that would be perceived as a sign from God

This concerns your question about "good deeds". Like I wrote before it's a question of motivation. If your good deeds would cause others to glorify God, do them in public, don't hide them. If your righteous acts (specifically giving to the poor) would cause men to honor you, do them in secret. How can there be a contradiction if your comparing apples to oranges?

The councils that came up with the canon were primarily interested in the ability to identify the authors of the books that were considered, the message was then considered. If I can prove that a certain epistle was written by the apostle Paul, and then another book or writing is presented whose authorship is uncertain and is in conflict with the Pauline writings which would you choose? If you read many of the "lost gospels" much of their writings are completely out of character with the other gospels. I will check out Marcionites and Ebonites.

I couldn't tell you who Hershel Shanks is or identify any of his writings.

I do want to thank you, you've made me study and think, and for that I owe you a debt of gratitude.

 

I meant to make it clear that the Greek Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament first written around 285BC, not the New Testament and that the reference you give of the Hebrew word for young girl is actually taken from Isaiah.

Luke was written in Greek, Matthew was written in Hebrew.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a few flaws in the logic of your song...

As I mentioned before I believe that, based on the scriptures, Hell is not a place that currently exists.

The Old Testament, specifically the book of Job, makes reference to Sheol as being the counterpart to heaven. Job refers to Sheol as the grave where one has to contend with absolute darkness. Isaiah 14:9-17 says that souls in Sheol have identity and a capacity to think, reason and speak.

What I take from this is that when a believer dies their soul and spirit are taken to heaven. When an unbeliever dies their soul is confined to Sheol where they will go mad with 'Weeping and gnashing of teeth' (Matthew 8:12) until the day of final judgement when they are cast into Hell.

Many note that the book of Job, although presented later in the Old Testament, dates back to the time of Abraham who predated Moses, the author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Job contains very specific references to Satan.

 

About what happens to us when we die, I think a good place to start is Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the rich man, in the Gospel of Luke. I know that it's a "story", but the parables were always based on real things and places. Both the rich man and Lazarus were taken to "hades" after their deaths, Lazarus to the "bosom of Abraham", the rich man to "torment". They were separated by a wide chasm but could communicate.
This is just my opinion but I believe that prior to Jesus' resurrection, all dead went to this place. The righteous and unrighteous. Jesus, I believe went to this place (I Peter 3:18). After His resurrection He told Mary "I have yet to see the Father", He had not been to heaven in other words.

That was before the resurrection, now I believe that those who are saved are immediately allowed into heaven, and that those who were righteous and were waiting in Hades have also been taken to heaven. Before, men still died in sin (even though some were counted as righteous), the perfect sacrifice had yet to be made. Now, after the sacrifice, (Jesus' death on the cross) we are sanctified and made holy and we can be allowed into heaven. Any thoughts? Just my .02$

 

I believe that's dead-on. No pun intended.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a few flaws in the logic of your

That's reasonable enough.

Could you give me the chapter and verse please? I'm not saying you're wrong. I just can't remember that at the moment (or much of anything else) and I won't be able to look at it in depth for at least a couple days. From what I've read, Sheol consists of two compartments. Abraham's bosom and Hades; the first would be Paradise/Heaven while the second would be Hell.

You and several others have said this, and I've also seen it online after reading it on here. BUT, two separate books I have both say that Job is believed to have been written during or after the Exile. I'll have to research it more before I argue or agree with this. I will say that the Satan's role in many of the books that mention him is more like a "secret policeman". He searches for subject that might possibly be unloyal to God and reports what he finds directly to God. In other words, he's much more an enemy of humanity than of God. Only in the New Testament does he get any real power.

 

One point to clairfy...

Old Testament believers went to 'The bosom of Abraham' while unbelievers went to 'Sheol'. Two distinctly different places.

Some suggest that 'The bosom of Abraham' is part of the realm of Heaven. Those who die believing in Christ are taken immediately into the presence of Jesus, possibly in another distinct realm of Heaven known as 'Paradise'. Luke 23:43

Basically, I don't believe those who kept the Law and died prior to Christ's sacrifice were required to suffer in Sheol awaiting His resurrection.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a few flaws in the logic of your

In reference to Sheol being the opposite of Heaven...

'Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? The are high as the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know?'
Job 11:7-8 NAS

In reference to the book of Job...

Several facts support the time of the events to the patriarchal society around the time of Abraham:

1. Job lived more than 140 years. Not uncommon for that period.
2. The economy of Job's day, in which wealth was measured in terms of livestock (Job 1:3) was the type that existed during that period.
3. Like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Job was the priest of his family.
4. The absence of any reference to the nation of Israel or the Mosiac Law suggests a pre-Mosaic (Moses) period.

The book gives important insights into the work of Satan (1:6-2:10) and wrestles with the age-old question of 'Why do righteous men suffer?' One suggestion is that God uses suffering to purify the righteous to bring them to a place of complete trust in Him.

Taken from the notes of the Ryrie Study Bible NAS.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a few flaws in the logic

"The actual date of composition cannot be determined, although many critics place the book in the late sixth or fifth century B.C.E." because

1.) the linguistic evidence
2.) the mention of caravans from Tema and Sheba
3.) the terms used for officials which follow those used during Persian times
4.) ideas presented are more developed than in Zechariah but less than in Chronicles.

info from NRSV Study Bible and Old Testament by Stephen Harris.

Depending on which date is correct (and I'm not sure either can be ruled out as being correct), it changes everything about Sheol and the portrayal of the Satan. To be honest, it wouldn't make sense for ALL of the book of Job to have been written at a time when the views you talk about weren't prevalent. BUT, I do know that Psalms was added to over time and that some verses are much older than other verses. Maybe this happened to the book of Job. People edited (add, subtract or change) all the books of the Bible over time to fit with what they believed.

Actually, this has given me something to think about for a while.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a few flaws in the logic

A good point that I did not have time to expand on in my previous post.

The facts listed in my previous post concern the date of the events in the book of Job.

The principle views concerning the date of the writing are:

1. In the patriarchal age, shortly after the events happened
2. In the time of Solomon
3. At the time of the Exile or after; though the mention of Job by Ezekiel (Ezek. 14:14) negates such a late date.

The detailed report of the speeches of Joband his friends seems to argue for the book being written shortly after the events occurred.

On the other hand, the book shares characteristics of other wisdom literature (e.g. Psalms) during the Solomonic age, and should be regarded as a dramatic poem describing real events, rather than a verbatim report.
Ryrie Study Bible Notes NAS

Sorry I didn't take time to clarify.