posted on October 24, 2001 06:48:46 PM new
jt,If you are interested ,My sister is a Theology teacher.She could probaly answear your question.Let me know if you are and I'll give you my email address.
posted on October 24, 2001 06:50:52 PM new
Sorry Donny. I am a bad speller. It's not generally a word that I use or even like. It is only because I am forced to define who the heck I am talking about. I don't care about the context that the "t" gives it...but yet I can't just say "Christian" because sometimes that's too broad for my meaning.
I'll just avoid the word all together if I can so you don't embarass me again.
***********
That statement that I made about the Jewish nation accepting the antichrist as the messiah is based on some interpretations I have read of Daniel 9: 25 and 27. It speaks of the rebuilding the temple, his peace treaty with Israel, and his putting an end to sacrifice and offering. So some interpret this to indicate that the only way for the Jewish nation to accept peacefully a leader who resides in the rebuilt temple who also does away with the (need for) sacrifice and offering, would be if he is accepted as the promised messiah.
2 Thess. 2:3-4 indicates that he takes a seat in the temple and declares himself to be God. You can bet that Israel wouldn't take that lightly if he were any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
But I admit, my statement may have been way out in left field...it's kinda' like my spelling.
posted on October 24, 2001 07:28:32 PM new
The prophecy in Daniel was one that the first century Jews where familiar with.And as a result they where expecting the Messiah at that time.
The prophecy in Daniel does not have a future fulfillment as it relates to the restoration of the temple after there exile from Babylon.
As the call to rebuild Jerusalem went out I think it was during the 20th year of the reing of King Artexerxes.
Based on the weeks of years this ended around 29 C.E.When Jesus appears and is baptized (my dates maybe off a year or so going from memory).Christ is put to death in the middle of one Biblical week.As mentioned in verse 27.
Then the destruction mentioned further in verse 26 relates to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 C.E.
Not Sure of how you translateing But what I was tought is that Daniel is a book of revelations of future events.
Frist The rebuilding of the temple, in the NT Jesus Refers to our body as the temple of the holy spirit, The baptism is a cleaning of that temple signfying the death of the old and beging of the new.
The peace treaty with israel, in the OT it was an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth as well as the comandment Jesus left us with one comandment that was that we love one another.
putting an end to sacrifice and offering, as atonement for sins Jesus death and resorection became the atonement the brought man back into gods graces..
Much of Israel missed this because they were thinking more in earthly terms and personel possessions and things they had even turned the temple of god into a den of thieves.
They had fallen so outside gods plain many forgot that they were what god was concerned with not worldly goods he sent jesus to redeem them save them personally..
Israel was at a point in its history where it had fallen really turned there back on god who had kept his promise and already made of them a great nation they were loseing there nation, so they were at that point looking for a messiah that would come and once again make them a great and powerful nation.
What they got was Jesus who came saying he was the messiah the son of god I am the physician sent to heal the sick of body and spirit they were looking for a great leader a new strong king.
TO this day even though israel is recognized as a nation it still struggles with its neighbors for its place.
I'm not how you find or come about your interpretations from reading daniel..
posted on October 24, 2001 08:09:18 PM newAll people are working their way twords God. Each religion ~ or faction of them ~ is just on a different path to heaven.They are all headed for the same place. They are all worshiping the same being. [the major religions that is]Why can't they see that any way to go there is ok. It isn't the path you're on but the destination that counts. Why do they all feel that unless you are walking the same path they are on you can't get there and must change? That is the thing that has always disturbed me about organized religion.
Me too, Rawbunz. Ditto. I agree. Maybe this is why I always get so confused and avoid the whole thing after I try to get more involved.
posted on October 24, 2001 08:25:41 PM new
Dman, I agree that man is sinful but that is our state as men. No one is pure and even if they were, works alone would not entitle mankind to heaven.
I say that Christians separate evil from God because to my understanding, Christians believe that evil (or sin) comes from Man and not God. This may seem like a trivial issue, but to suppose there is a force that acts outside of God's jurisdiction and contrary to God's wishes weakens the idea of a supreme being.
Consider the story of Joseph. If Joseph hadn't been thrown into a pit by his brothers, he wouldn't have risen to be second to Pharoah in Egypt. So how much of Joseph's redemption was planned by God? I say, all of it. It wasn't coincidence that Joseph's brothers threw him in a pit, it was part of God's plan.
The story of Job reflected the trials of Jesus much earlier. Job was a righteous man, beloved by God, but God certainly didn't pull any punches, just to prove a point.
posted on October 24, 2001 08:46:43 PM new
My personal theory as to why there is evil is because it would be impossible for us to know what God is unless we experience what God is not.
I also agree with Rawbunzel. There have always been many paths to God. Man just keeps making up more - and every time a new path emerges everyone swears it's the only way...
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
edited - too many words
[ edited by mybiddness on Oct 24, 2001 08:49 PM ]
posted on October 24, 2001 08:48:57 PM new
Some prophecy sites that I like to poke around in (and wish I had more time to read in depth...I should stop chatting):
posted on October 24, 2001 09:54:26 PM new
I didn't mean to embarass you by pointing out that misspelling again, Terri. As I said, it's not a matter of spelling, but of meaning. And, yes, I know you don't care about the context that the "t" gives "Protestant" (rather than "Prodestant". It makes no difference that Protestantism was born of Catholocism, Cathlolics still aren't Christians.
posted on October 25, 2001 12:34:38 AM new
Donny, I was not implying that certain groups are "not a Christian" but only that some
denominations differ more significantly in their beliefs and traditions, and others are very very closely related. I have trouble distinguishing what "general set of common beliefs" that I am
speaking of.
For instance, if you line up a Baptist, a Methodist, and Pentecostal, you can pick out the Pentecostal in 5 seconds but even with quite a conversation you can't tell the Methodist from the Baptist if you don't mention measures of water. All three would of course be Christians.
~spell check, found several errors
[ edited by jt on Oct 25, 2001 12:38 AM ]
~misplaced punctuation
[ edited by jt on Oct 25, 2001 12:39 AM ]
~mispelled "punctuation" Curses.
[ edited by jt on Oct 25, 2001 12:40 AM ]
posted on October 25, 2001 01:28:18 AM new
"For instance, if you line up a Baptist, a Methodist, and Pentecostal, you can pick out the Pentecostal in 5 seconds but even with quite a conversation you can't tell the Methodist from the Baptist if you don't mention measures of water. All three would of course be Christians."
Of course they'd all be Christinans, those are all Protestant denominations.
"I was not implying that certain groups are "not a Christian" "
Well, yes, you are, when you say, one page 1 that, "Though Christians do not accept the Book of Mormon," clearly you don't consider Mormons to be Christians.
It's not just in this thread, you've indicated in at least one other thread that Mormons are not Christians, and we've already had the "Catholics are not Christians" discussion previously.
It's odd that you'd say that "yet I can't just say "Christian" because sometimes that's too broad for my meaning" when, in fact, your usage as an indication of who is entitled to be properly classified as "Christian" is actually quite narrow.
Anyway, I'm gone for awhile, no more interruptions from me.
posted on October 25, 2001 02:09:55 AM new"There have always been many paths to God."
I believe that the only path to God is through Jesus, however, saying someone is not a Christian because they don't cling (unthinkingly) to some God forsaken, bogus, mainsteam "Christian" dogma like the Trinity is ridiculous.
I can not find anything in the bible that says you must believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in order to be saved.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 25, 2001 02:10 AM ]
posted on October 25, 2001 04:57:19 AM newdonny: Actually, Mormons strongly believe themselves to be Christians. In fact, the real name of the church ["Mormon" is just a nickname] is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", and their core teachings state the divinity of Christ and the fact that salvation can only come through him.
Of course, people are free to define "Christian" any way they so please, and if their narrow definition excludes Catholics, Mormons, or anybody who happens to disagree with their particular interpretation of scripture, nothing I say will convince them otherwise. In fact, I suppose Mormons would be fully justified in feeling that they are the only "real" Christians and that everybody ELSE is a non-believing pagan. Not that they do feel that way, of course.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 25, 2001 11:05:43 AM new
Teri,
If I may ask. Why don't you care about the context that the "t" gives the word Protestant? I can honestly understand spelling errors, I am incredibly horrible at spelling and I refuse to run posts through a spell checker.. but I am confused about the not caring about the context.
I think context is important, and from your studies of the bible, I think you do to. So it kinda shocks me to see you disregard and toss aside something .. as important... as context.
Context defines and helps to determine the meaning behind something. Do you really not care about the context of that "t"? Or is it that you don't really care about the religion? Afterall, the religion is defined, and the people are defined, by that "t".
If you don't care about the context of that "t", who's to say you won't care about the context of the questions you ask today about every other religion.
If you really care about learning about other religions, you have to remember the context. Otherwise all you're doing is trying to find loopholes and shortcuts in a religion, in order to try to turn it's followers away from that religion and towards yours.
I don't believe that really is your intent, but it could be misconstrued by the context of some of your posts.
posted on October 25, 2001 01:48:18 PM new
Rosie,
I don't think in terms of being associated with a denomination "against the Catholic Church". I use it to define a context of beliefs that are similar. That's all. No hidden agenda in my use of the word.
I use it to describe, (generally) Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, etc, etc. which are very very similar in belief and practice; and to distinguish them in my dialogue from other denominations with more clearly defined differences. Historically my use of the word may be somewhat in error.
Some denominations with more defined differences would be Mormonism, Pentecostal, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholicism.
But my intent is not to divide therefore "protest" seems a bit strong to me.
I don't wish to alienate or judge other denominations who have significant differences from my own, nor is my knowledge of them at all in-depth. I am ever curious about other denominations but I try to focus (sometimes unsuccessfully) on common factors rather than differences to avoid strife. Hearing, sharing, other views, practices, traditions and interpretations is extremely interesting and enlightening but it should not cause divisions.
I believe this very stongly:
"He who is not with Me (Christ) is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." Matthew 12:30
My allegiance will always be to Christ and never to a denomination or a tradition.
Honestly, sometimes, in considering the differences, I think about certian things, "They got it right and we didn't". Thank God for mercy.
P.S. If it were up to me, we would all have hippy hair and sit on the grass and eat fish.
posted on October 25, 2001 02:18:57 PM new
Why is everyone saying goodbye? If it's something like RT is vanishing (I have NO idea), won't everyone just move to a new board?
posted on October 25, 2001 02:23:09 PM newMethodists in the south must be way different than Methodists in the north.
I don't know. I have been members of both. Methodist sprinkle, Baptist dunk. Methodist kneel for communion, Baptist pass trays with little tiny cups. That's all I noticed in 4 years at a Methodist Church and the rest of my life at a Baptist.
Might be interesting to talk about further...but everyone seems to know something that I don't.
Many will always seem to know something you don't.
Everyone has there strengths in different area's, That what makes discussions interesting as far as the subject of the bible goes many other topics as well.
Even the people who say they don't believe in a all powerfull God Like KRS and others can add Things many have never looked at Simply because they are seeing christanity from more then an arms length away so to speak.
Given the sudden change that things have taken since I last posted (moderator's threads), I just wanted to say one thing to you:
While many of your threads have bugged the heck out of me, over the last year +, that I've been here.. I respect the tenacity with which you have shared your beliefs ~ even though I don't believe my posts have reflected as much.
posted on October 25, 2001 08:18:43 PM new
Thank you rosie. That really means a lot to me. I guess somehow I feel that if I persist long enough in being myself I will begin to be seen in 3-D and not just through a narrow tunnel...at least by someone.
posted on October 26, 2001 01:11:37 AM new
Question to make you think.
"All people are working their way twords God. Each religion ~ or faction of them ~ is just on a different path to heaven.They are all headed for the same place. They are all worshiping the same being. [the major religions that is]Why can't they see that any way to go there is ok."
Does that include the Taliban?
Does that include the religions of the Philistines that offered their first born as literal burnt offerings?
Does that include the South American religions that took young people on the Mountain tops and offered them up by exposure?
Does it include the Christian religions that burnt people at the stake or smothered them under boulders for witchcraft or printing the Bible?
All of them are major religions in that they were followed by millions of people in vast areas.
. It makes no difference that Protestantism was born of Catholocism, Cathlolics still aren't Christians.
