GTAVercetti 0 #176 August 11, 2005 The simple fact is that, under Jewish law, the only lineage that counts is the father. And that is interpreting it in its historical and cultural context. Going through Mary's line, even by mentioning Joseph instead, does not list HIS HOUSES. And indeed, if Mary was counted "in" Joseph, then his lineage, not hers, should be listed. The way it is written, he is being included in HER headship not the other way around. When God said that the seed of david would always have the throne, he said it to JEWS, who lived under Jewish Law that was supposed to be inspired by God, and they would take that to mean tracing the Messiah through Joseph, not Mary. by the way, this is a great debate. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #177 August 11, 2005 QuoteI just read that. Who is it that gets to decide whenQuotethe Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history? It seems that it's OK to do in order to deal with different lineages and all kinds of stuff, but not to deal with women's role in church, or whether homosexuality is a perversion? It's all in whom you accept doing the interpretation. Wendy W. I did not even think of that. That is a great point.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #178 August 11, 2005 Quoteunder Jewish law, the only lineage that counts is the father Actually, that depends on what is considered "counting." Which tribe you belong to is through the father, but one's Jewishness is transferred through the mother -- it takes both parents. If a Jewish man marries a Gentile, the children must be converted to be considered Jewish by either Orthodox or Conservative. If a Jewish woman marries a Gentile, no problem. But being of a priestly tribe etc. comes through the father. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #179 August 11, 2005 QuoteQuoteunder Jewish law, the only lineage that counts is the father Actually, that depends on what is considered "counting." Which tribe you belong to is through the father, but one's Jewishness is transferred through the mother -- it takes both parents. If a Jewish man marries a Gentile, the children must be converted to be considered Jewish by either Orthodox or Conservative. If a Jewish woman marries a Gentile, no problem. But being of a priestly tribe etc. comes through the father. Wendy W. True. As I pointed out from Numbers: Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls; (KJV) Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first [day] of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (KJV) That is for lineage. And the lineage of Jesus is the question at hand. There is no doubt he was Jewish.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #180 August 11, 2005 QuoteThe simple fact is that, under Jewish law, the only lineage that counts is the father. And that is interpreting it in its historical and cultural context. Going through Mary's line, even by mentioning Joseph instead, does not list HIS HOUSES. And indeed, if Mary was counted "in" Joseph, then his lineage, not hers, should be listed. The way it is written, he is being included in HER headship not the other way around. Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? QuoteDoes anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). QuoteWhen God said that the seed of david would always have the throne, he said it to JEWS, who lived under Jewish Law that was supposed to be inspired by God, and they would take that to mean tracing the Messiah through Joseph, not Mary. I'm sure Luke knew the prophesy pretty well and he wrote this (he wasn't trying to hide anything): QuoteNotice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph. They traced the geaneology through both mother & father. There was a virgin birth. Therefore, Joseph adopted Jesus. It all matches up and speaks very highly for the accurate and detailed transfer of records over the past ~2000 years concerning this matter. Matthew (written to the Jews) - Legal line Luke (written to the Gentiles to provide a full and accurate record) - Biological line Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #181 August 11, 2005 Well, obviously we are not getting anywhere here. I have said it already: lineage and genealogy only count through the father. Mary is irrelevant as far as it is concerned. But, for the sake of argument, lets say that Mary is indeed of the line of David and that it counts. Now, look at Chronicles: 1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. Coupled with the Psalm: Psalms 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. [35] Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. [36] His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. [37] It shall be established for ever as the moon, and [as] a faithful witness in heaven. Selah And we see that the king of Israel was to be descendant from David AND Solomon. However, in Luke, where he metions the genealogy of Jesus (through Mary or whatever), it gets to David in Luke 3:31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David So, if Luke's writing is about MARY's lineage, then it shows that she if of the line of David, but NOT of Solomon. And yet, the Messiah was to be of the line of both. It seems that everyone ignores that bit about Solomon having the throne forever but keep the David part.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #182 August 12, 2005 QuoteWell, obviously we are not getting anywhere here. I have said it already: lineage and genealogy only count through the father. Mary is irrelevant as far as it is concerned. From a legal aspect, it might be the only line that counts, however, from an historical perspective, Mary’s line is very relevant. Again, Luke wasn’t writing to the Jews. He was writing to the Gentiles to give a more detailed historical account. Matthew was writing to the Jews and his style was tailored as such. QuoteSo, if Luke's writing is about MARY's lineage, then it shows that she if of the line of David, but NOT of Solomon. And yet, the Messiah was to be of the line of both. The legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son. Even with the virgin birth, Jesus’ lineage comes from both lines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #183 August 12, 2005 I DO NOT take crediit for finding this one. Mockingbird did. I wanted to put it out there because I thought it was very easy to read and understand and complete. It's also notable that it was put together by Jewish believers well versed in the old law. Messiah's Right to David's Throne It's not a long read and worth your time. Most of the info is the same. Just a different perspective. It summarizes why most Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah and why some modern Jews do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #184 August 12, 2005 Thanks for posting the link. I was just getting around to it and saw that you already had. Thanks. I want to take this tiny opportunity to say, that for me, the bible and historical sources which validate people and events which I've always read about in the bible, makes faith a very logical response for me. Why are FACTS not worthy of faith? I know some people, one in particular, who knows the facts but is stubborn in saying he believes them. He doesn't want to RECEIVE Christ because of how it would affect his personal life.... so he sacrifices eternity for a few years of casual sex and denial of God. That is really logical, huh. But, it's his life, so I don't bug him about it.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #185 August 12, 2005 you are taking a VERY liberal definition of the word 'FACTS'. there are very few facts that support ANY religious belief, and you will continue to lose any argument in which you assert your belief as 'FACT' a 'Fact' can be proven. Nothing in the Bible qualifies..much less can be used as evidence that anyone is 'sacrificing eternity'____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #186 August 12, 2005 Your friend could always ask forgiveness. No damnation there. Couple of points in general on the thread: I mentioned Jews and the Messiah because someone said the prophecies were so accurate. My feeling is that an accurate prophecy can only be considered so if everyone says 'Ohhh THATS what he was talking about' not if only a few people say so. Abusing/Mocking God.....actually I was abusing and mocking his more abusable followers, not God. If, however, I was mocking God (which is always possible since I'm rarely paying attention to what I'm saying) I'm pretty sure that God will take the time to point it out at the designated time, and while he may appreciate some of you trying to correct me he may very well be laughing his ass off at what I said and nodding in agreement - that's the funny thing about interpreting scripture, there's a lot of room for a lot of different gods. While there are many of you here calling yourself christian's there are some who quite obviously disagree with each other. Parjito takes the position that the Bible, while factual, is not the absolute word of God and requires interpretation and knowledge of the source materials, languages and cultures to truly understand the whole message. He also takes the tack that the Bible was inspired by God, but does not necessarily have to be absolutely without syntactic error to remain viable. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Chuteless, and others, however take the point of view that the KJV is absolutely and without doubt the absolute uncorruptible word of God in every paragraph, sentence and letter. The translators were tools of God and the KJV english is exactly what God intended as the Bible, even over and above all other translations present and past. Although Chuteless has yet to comment on those books in their original languages. David Koresh (not a member of DZ.com, yet still quite famous) interpreted the Bible in a way that allowed him to be the Messiah and get lots of chicks. Koresh was a rock Guitar player. This feeling is not uncommon for most rock guitar players, we just dont collect women and guns (often, usually one or the other), and we dont have the patience to start our own cults (although I've been asked to on more than one occasion). Jehovas witnesses also interpret the Bible differently and have their own faith. As to Seventh Day Adventists. As do Protestants As do Roman Catholics (in english speaking countries). What of the NIV and other English translations which OPENLY contradict the exact wording and 'color' of the KJV of the Bible. Any number of Biblical sites will allow you to confirm this yourself, just read the same chapter of a book in the various versions available. Jesus will still be crucified, he will tell the same stories, but the wording, context, inferences can all be subtely different - and when we're dealing with somethign which is so obviously an ABSOLUTE with many of you then it raises further questions about the ability to adhere to the exact word of God. If that makes any particular sense to anyone but myself. Each and every one of them will tell you that their brand of truth, that their interpretation is the only true interpretation of Gods Word. Each will place different weight on the Bible, whether it be Gods only tool to communicate with the present day (or the future from the authors perspectives), as a guidebook to be understood through the teachings of people who've spent their lives researching its content. Some will absolutely follow the absolute letter (although they pick and choose the specific laws that need to be adhered to from the OT and tend to ignore the ones that seriously dont make sense anymore) So, my Christian friends, I ask each of you, with no sarcasm: Which of you is correct? You each have unwavering faith in your God. You each have unwavering faith that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. You each have unwavering faith that your method of worshiping God is the correct one. You each, in some form or other, have spoken to your God (at least I would hope so, seems a complete waste of faith if you're not actually having some sort of relationship with him). It would be inaccurate for you all to link hands as one and say 'we all beleve in One God' because while you may all follow an entity who is described within the pages of The Holy Bible, you do not follow the same God if your perspectives of that single book conflicts in any way with each other. For you to reject Koresh and JW but accept Chuteless and Parajito makes no sense, simply because Chuteless and Parajito seem more reasonable to your ingrained biases about religion. It does not, in my mind, lessen the fact that perhaps Koresh was correct and everyone else is gone. He prophecised his death and it happened, he died for his faith, he died while doing work that he believed that God had ordered him to do. Who are we to suggest that Koresh really did have a direct line to God, that he did hear him and was doing God's will? Only our human sense that he was wrong. Only that his method of worship and belief is at odds with what you are so convinced is correct. Each of you feels the truth of your faith physically, and each of you is absolutely balls to bone convinced of that. Nothing anyone is going to say or do is going to change that. Yet the fact remains that each will think the others faiths are incorrect/ignorant/under satans influence. Can multiple conflicting spiritual realities co-exist within the same physical space and be equally valid? For your sakes I hope so, or there's a lot of you who are in for a big surprise according to the rules you're all playing by. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #187 August 12, 2005 >So, my Christian friends, I ask each of you, with no sarcasm: >Which of you is correct? Once upon a time five blind men heard an elephant walk by. They hurried up to the noise to determine what this new animal was. One found his tail. "An elephant is like a rope!" he said. Another found his side. "An elephant is like a massive wall," he said. A third found his trunk. "An elephant is like a snake," he told the others. A fourth found his ear. "An elephant is like a carpet," he said. A fifth found his leg. "An elephant is like a tree trunk," he claimed. They argued all night long, each convinced they were right. They each had the evidence of their own senses to believe, and could not believe how wrong the others were. Which one was correct? Everyone believes in their own version of God. I'll bet you could get two Chutelesses together and they'd _still_ argue over details of who said what when. Heck, just ask any two creationist christians whether God created woman before or after he created livestock. But, like the blind men, that doesn't mean any of them are wrong. They are just doing their best to understand something that we're not well equipped to understand. Personally, I have my own conception of what God is like, and it works for me. If Bill Cole's conception works for him, then heck, he's right too. And if Pajarito's works for him, and gives him comfort - then he's just as right as anyone else. And if you believe something completely different - you are as correct as anyone else. None of us have seen God. Until we do, we'll be as informed as those blind men - which is to say, we will have our part of the story, but will be lacking in the vision to see the whole. I think it's just that some people think their vision is better than it really is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #188 August 13, 2005 QuoteOnce upon a time five blind men heard an elephant walk by. They hurried up to the noise to determine what this new animal was. One found his tail. "An elephant is like a rope!" he said. Another found his side. "An elephant is like a massive wall," he said. A third found his trunk. "An elephant is like a snake," he told the others. A fourth found his ear. "An elephant is like a carpet," he said. A fifth found his leg. "An elephant is like a tree trunk," he claimed. They argued all night long, each convinced they were right. They each had the evidence of their own senses to believe, and could not believe how wrong the others were. Which one was correct? What is God like? Quote It is often shared that the different religions of the world are like a group of blind men each touching an elephant. One running his hand over the trunk says that it is like a snake, as it curls and flexes. Another feeling its ear says it is like the palm branch. Another touching the side said it was rough like a mud brick wall. And finally another down around its feet says it is like a tree. Like the blind men, it is said that the religions of the world don't have the whole picture of God but only describe a part. However, there are several problems with this analogy. First, the analogy just doesn't accurately apply to our perception of God. As Christians, we believe that God has revealed Himself to us in Christ Jesus. We are not blind as to who God is, or what He is like. This story makes all religions the same, but Christianity does not fit in with other religions of the world. We could not be talking about the same God only from a different perspective, as the analogy would have us believe. There is a difference of whether there are many gods, as some world religions expound, or just one. Even the blind men agree that there is only one elephant. It is what the elephant looks like that they disagree about. If we take this to correspond to the character of God, instead of His multiplicity, there is still a difference between gods who behave like men, and a God whose character is unique and unlike men. There is a difference between gods who are both good and evil and a God who is perfectly good. These cannot be describing different aspects of the same God, for they are not just different, but mutually exclusive.4 Another problem with the analogy is the blind men are not very good researchers. Having touched the elephant in only one place they make their conclusions, while there is still more to explore! Often people accept the quick and easy answer or any answer. If one is earnest in examining the evidence, despite our blindness, it becomes increasingly clear that the God of the Bible is both real and knowable. Our God is perfect. He is perfect in goodness, love, power, knowledge, and wisdom. Here is another reason this simple analogy doesn’t fit. “Religion is man reaching out to God.” “Christianity is God reaching out to man.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #189 August 13, 2005 QuotePajarito takes the position that the Bible, while factual, is not the absolute word of God and requires interpretation and knowledge of the source materials, languages and cultures to truly understand the whole message. He also takes the tack that the Bible was inspired by God, but does not necessarily have to be absolutely without syntactic error to remain viable. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I need to clarify just because I can’t be known as “reasonable”, I like to argue incessantly, and I’m extremely hard headed.” Your statement above "is not the absolute word of God" is not the wording I would have chosen. I believe the originals, of which we have none, is the inerrant, infallible, “inspired” word of God written by men. I believe the copies and translations are extremely accurate and can be trusted. I do not believe that any error in copy or translation alters the principals of Christianity. I also do not believe that any errors which do exist were put there with mal-intent. I do believe that what is read in the Bible must be kept in proper context and taken as a whole in order to receive the proper message. Is that what you said? If so then…….well……………..ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #190 August 13, 2005 >This story makes all religions the same, but Christianity does not >fit in with other religions of the world. Ah, but your version of christianity doesn't even fit with the LDS version, or the Roman Catholic version, or the Jews for Jesus version - although I assume you feel more kinship with them than you do for, say, Hindus or Buddhists. Heck, David Koresh felt very strongly that he was on 'your side.' So there is a continuum of religions, and some are more valid than others (to you.) Which is fine - just realize that other people feel the same way, and to some, yours is one of the invalid ones to them. And their opinions matter just as much as yours. >Our God is perfect. He is perfect in goodness, love, power, >knowledge, and wisdom. I'm not sure about much when it comes to such things, but I am pretty sure that anyone who claims perfect understanding is claiming a lot more than any human is capable of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #191 August 13, 2005 QuoteCan multiple conflicting spiritual realities co-exist within the same physical space and be equally valid? of course they can.. spiritual reality takes up very little space... and its a big universe...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #192 August 13, 2005 there is very little "Reason" in the quote you provided.. Christianity is a religion just like every other, and makes unprovable assertions, just like every other.. once again you (the source you quote) mistakes 'faith' for 'evidence'.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #193 August 13, 2005 QuoteYour friend could always ask forgiveness. No damnation there. Yes, and his life is not over... meaning, the last chapter has not been written. This is a person who believes what scripture says about God; but he will not receive Christ personally. I hope that he will come to the realization that receiving Christ is the best thing he could possibly do. QuoteI'm pretty sure that God will take the time to point it out at the designated time, and while he may appreciate some of you trying to correct me he may very well be laughing his ass off at what I said and nodding in agreement - that's the funny thing about interpreting scripture, there's a lot of room for a lot of different gods. I am glad to hear that you will not change your beliefs or your ways because someone else wants you to. God is the one to whom you are accountable, not me (and I am very glad not to responsible for you as I would no doubt screw it up somehow). What you do in response to God's truth is between you and Him. Your last statement about there being room for a lot of different gods in the interpretation of scripture, could not be more untrue, according to that same scripture. The only "god" that scripture recognizes as the true god is Jehovah (Heb. "the self-existent one"). (Yes, I'm going to quote scripture because it is more appropriate than my own feeble words:) Exodus 3:13-15: But Moses protested, "If I go to the people of Israel and tell them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' they won't believe me. They will ask, 'Which god are you talking about? What is his name?' Then what should I tell them?" God replied, "I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS. Just tell them, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God also said, "Tell them, 'The LORD, the God of your ancestors--- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob--- has sent me to you.' This will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations." I know from scripture and from personal experience that if anyone is really interested in evaluating the evidence for proof of Christianity's truth, God will give light.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #194 August 13, 2005 Quoteyou are taking a VERY liberal definition of the word 'FACTS'. there are very few facts that support ANY religious belief, and you will continue to lose any argument in which you assert your belief as 'FACT' a 'Fact' can be proven. Nothing in the Bible qualifies..much less can be used as evidence that anyone is 'sacrificing eternity' "Nothing in the bible qualifies" as a fact"??? Nothing in the bible can be "proved"??? Dictionary.com says that a "FACT" is: "fact n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; 4: a concept whose truth can be proved." The bible contains many facts... about people, places... but especially about Christ.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #195 August 13, 2005 QuoteNone of us have seen God. Until we do, we'll be as informed as those blind men - which is to say, we will have our part of the story, but will be lacking in the vision to see the whole. True, we have not seen God "in the flesh," (but of course, we couldn't anyway, since He is not materially visible)... but until we do, we *can* really know what He is like. We don't have to lack knowledge. Here's why. Shortly before Jesus died, he told his followers: I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had known who I am, then you would have known who my Father is. From now on you know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Philip, don't you even yet know who I am, even after all the time I have been with you? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking to see him? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?..." (John 14) Also: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like." (John 1:18) Jesus even referred to himself in several instances as "I AM," the same name that God the Father used for Himself.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #196 August 13, 2005 QuoteI mentioned Jews and the Messiah because someone said the prophecies were so accurate. My feeling is that an accurate prophecy can only be considered so if everyone says 'Ohhh THATS what he was talking about' not if only a few people say so. If one is opposed to the implications of a fact, NO amount of evidence will persuade him.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #197 August 13, 2005 QuoteWhile there are many of you here calling yourself christian's there are some who quite obviously disagree with each other. Differing viewpoinsts don't undo truth, though. But as Pajarito said, Christians may have to "agree to disagree" about things that are not of major consequence, such as which version of the Bible is the best? Major truths, i.e., the foundations of Christianity, such as the diety of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, the trinity, salvation by the grace of God rather than by our own work, the Bible as being authoritative, the eventual return of Christ, and so on, Chrisitans hold in common. These are teachings that would be extremely hard NOT to understand. The simplest and least complex truths are usually the most important.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #198 August 13, 2005 QuoteQuotePajarito takes the position that the Bible, while factual, is not the absolute word of God and requires interpretation and knowledge of the source materials, languages and cultures to truly understand the whole message. He also takes the tack that the Bible was inspired by God, but does not necessarily have to be absolutely without syntactic error to remain viable. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Is that what you said? If so then…….well……………..ok. Yup, thats pretty much what I said, just without the paranoia that someone might possibly think that wasn't what I was saying. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #199 August 13, 2005 Quote Differing viewpoinsts don't undo truth, though. But as Pajarito said, Christians may have to "agree to disagree" about things that are not of major consequence, such as which version of the Bible is the best? Major truths, i.e., the foundations of Christianity, such as the diety of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, the trinity, salvation by the grace of God rather than by our own work, the Bible as being authoritative, the eventual return of Christ, and so on, Chrisitans hold in common. These are teachings that would be extremely hard NOT to understand. The simplest and least complex truths are usually the most important. I'm sorry, you're saying David Koresh and yourself both practice the same form of Christianity? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #200 August 13, 2005 QuoteAh, but your version of christianity doesn't even fit with the LDS version, or the Roman Catholic version, or the Jews for Jesus version - although I assume you feel more kinship with them than you do for, say, Hindus or Buddhists. Heck, David Koresh felt very strongly that he was on 'your side.' So there is a continuum of religions, and some are more valid than others (to you.) Which is fine - just realize that other people feel the same way, and to some, yours is one of the invalid ones to them. And their opinions matter just as much as yours. You’re right in that the LDS version doesn’t fit in with Christianity (explained in link below). They’ll claim to be Christian religions as will Jehovah’s Witnesses but they’re not. Roman Catholics and Jews for Jesus, however, agree on what’s ultimately important and so do I. We may have our differences but they are still Christian. Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus I have no idea what you’re trying to say with reference to Hindus or Buddhists. They are also not Christian. They’ll even admit to that. I realize and accept that others don’t agree with me or Christianity. Just because one doesn’t believe in something, however, doesn’t mean that it’s not true. QuoteI'm not sure about much when it comes to such things, but I am pretty sure that anyone who claims perfect understanding is claiming a lot more than any human is capable of. I fully agree. Anyone who claims such should be suspect. It’s one of the Ten Marks of a Cult Religion. David Koresh is used as an example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites