<p>i say some (most) protestant churches have wandered from true interpretation of the Bible.</p>
<p>And I say that ALL Protestant churches arose in the 16th Century or later and, for the most part, Jesus wouldn’t recognize what they are talking about.</p>
<p>hehe nicee.</p>
<p>im just waiting (and hoping) to get flamed.</p>
<p>Religious Bigotry? To question? To Wonder? Please, that is once again calling names for those that have a curiosity. So any one that has questions, wonder about others INTERPRETATIONS of documents, wonders what MAN has done to those documents, wonders about…I may not always agree with Islamic interpretations in some countries, but I try and learn about Islamic teachings, its path through history, how it has been changed, and how different sects see their religion, does that make me a bigot? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Question, wonder, ponder to your hearts content. That is NOT what I wrote. What has been a fairly common theme on these posts is that the fundamentalists are “bad” because of their views on salvation. This is bigotry. Just as it is bigotry for a fundamentalist to think of a non-fundamentalist as “bad” for their views. Bigotry comes into place when the person is being questioned rather than the view.</p>
<p>
I don’t know how you can authoritatively say that. It is more likely that Jesus would not have recognized what the Roman Catholic church of the 15th Century was talking about.</p>
<p>probably, but the existence of protestant churches, or more importantly, science, have brought the Catholic church back to Biblical legitimacy. (i.e. acknowledgement that the Bible is not literal)</p>
<p>“I don’t know how you can authoritatively say that. It is more likely that Jesus would not have recognized what the Roman Catholic church of the 15th Century was talking about.”</p>
<p>Well, who knows? I read my Jesus, and there’s nothing about resurrection, saving through blood, son of God (son of man, that’s another matter), virgin birth, Trinities, charity (he said give all you have to the poor, not a little bit), marriage, sex. He didn’t like bankers or the rich much, it seems. He specifically condemns praying in public, and definitely condemns praying in synagogues (churches not having even been invented.) He seems to have thought he’d build churches in people, not churches for people to go inside. </p>
<p>Paulism is a very interesting religion. I’m pretty much okay with folks believing what they want, and am generally more interested in what, in our personal experiences, lead us to believe the strange things that we do.</p>
<p>Perhaps you could take a look at this and see if it changes your views about what Jesus said about himself and resurrection: <a href=“http://www.startingwithgod.com/articles/jesus.htm[/url]”>http://www.startingwithgod.com/articles/jesus.htm</a></p>
<p>Fundinfather, you worry me. That is propanganda. Have you ever read Josephus? He was the historian of the times. Jesus was an after thought at best. He just had the best salesman of all time (Paul).</p>
<p>Thank you. But I think I am a pretty good reader of the four gospels (and an article that can try to make sense of Jesus in a Jewish context without any reference to the Hillelic tradition seems pretty ignorant to me.) But if it floats your boat…</p>
<p><a href=“Newsroom - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis”>http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/711.html</a></p>
<p>People used to be crucified all over the place.</p>
<p>And taken down on Friday afternoon, before the Jewish Sabbath - as was the operative law of the land, and roughly 10% of them lived. It was a great shock to the Portuguese when they arrived at the Malabar Coast of India in the 15th and 16th Century and found all these practicing Christians, descended from Thomas, who looked at the Portuguese priests with utter astonishment when they heard about this death and resurrection business, since Thomas had come east with Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Mary’s tomb can still be visited in the town of “Marie” in Pakistan; in better times, you could visit the tomb of Jesus outside of Srinagar in Kashmir.</p>
<p>(It is likely, though, that the Romans didn’t string him up, but the Italians did. Very few actual Romans serving the “Roman” army in Palestine circa 1st century a.d.)</p>
<p>The relevant passage in Josephus:</p>
<p>“I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa, to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.” (The Life of Flavius Josephus (Vita), Section 75)</p>
<p>There there is that wonderful passage in Iraneaus, he being the man solely responsible for what we find in the New Testament today:</p>
<p>5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years (1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. (2) And he [Jesus or John?] remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?</p>
<p>sorry, citygirlsmom, I do not understand what the question is. </p>
<p>To crash: This is a very common question, and let’s put it this way; everyone has sinned, and even though we can try to do good, that does does not erase what we have done before. Now God is offering a free service to do so for us, and all we need to do is admit we do have sin (we can’t believe it is gone if we don’t believe it was there in the first place) and allow Him to do so. </p>
<p>Regarding those from other religions, this is what I believe: God will decide. No one on earth can say who is going to heaven or hell. Yet, the Way has been laid out and invites everyone to come.
An example would be how a Christian mother saw the child she aborted laughing with Jesus in a vision. I know this is not what one would call ‘scientific evidence’, but it shows that Jesus is all loving; and love as a whole includes justice.</p>
<p>And I know many Christians do NOT act godly. Here’s what Jesus said:</p>
<p>“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (The pharisees and teachers of the law knew a lot of the right stuff but never did anything)</p>
<p>There’s a better one on how people who evangelize and perform miracles in the name of Jesus being rejected by him. What God looks at is the motivation underneath the actions. (but I can’t find it right now, it’s in the gospels I’m sure)</p>
<p>Finally, who makes the rules? here’s an interesting line from an interesting story (sorry, i can’t remember clearly on this either):</p>
<p>God said to this guy ‘people do not think about obeying my rule of gravitational force…’</p>
<p>yes, God makes all rules, scientific and spiritual, and they are made according to His love. Think about this, if there was no gravity, at the speed the earth is orbiting people would be flying out, and flying out is not a safe thing. A rule of thumb: disobeying is dangerous. Thinking about it the other way, GOD DISOBEYS PEOPLE TO DO THINGS THAT HURT THEM. God made rules so people will be safe. he has clearly labelled the boundary between what is safe and what is not so we don’t hurt ourselves and others. </p>
<p>I believe, that is loving. Rules are loving.</p>
<p>bneg…i think what citygirls mom and i are saying is that…who really wrote the words??? Jesus did not right the words down…people after him (with perhaps not as pure motives) wrote everything down and interpreted it and TRANSLATED IT. Did you ever see some of those jokes sent around about mix ups in translation. God did not write it down (certainly not in English)…and Jesus did not write it down and MAN has never been known to write an accurate version of history. It is always biased and always interpreted by their vision. It’s also been 2000 years. They interpreted things from what they understood 2000 years ago. You can take it as a loose guide, but you can’t take it as gospel. I think Jesus probably said some very good things, but we really don’t know EXACTLY what he said. The way his name has been taken in vain, I think he’s crying wherever he may be.</p>
<p>
This is a bit puzzling. Why should this link a) make you worry about me and b) be viewed as “propaganda” From my reading of the link it appears to directly address some of Mini’s assertions about what Jesus claimed about himself with appropriate Biblical references. If that “worries” you, so be it.</p>
<p>And it was pretty “amusing” the way he did it without a single reference to the synoptic Gospels.</p>
<p>Well, to start with, why is the Jesus depicted in the pictures not a Jew in your link?</p>
<p>
Quite frankly I didn’t even notice the picture. Did you read the words or did you open the link just to find the first negative thing to invalidate the entire page?</p>
<p>I read the words. I didn’t expect you to notice the pictures. Most people never notice. :)</p>