The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[Jayrok]

Absence of evidence doesn't ever prove anything. Other than you haven't found any evidence.

That's not true with Archaeology. It did find David's kingdom. Just that David's kingdom was more like David's village. There is proof that Jerusalem was nothing more than a few joining villages during times when the bible said there was an empire that stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt. Is it a lie? or just an exaggeration? Either way, in what light does it put the bible?

I'm not the expert. Ask the archaeologists. One of them is Director of Archaeological studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel. He's been doing if for decades. The team is highly credentialed.. editors of Archaeology today magazine, etc..

 

[larry_boy_44]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

Yeah, LB, if the miracles are made up then maybe the book of Acts is made up too.

not made up, stylized, there is a HUGE difference...

So what if "in Jesus' name" is stylized?

there are too many different sources that agree with "Jesus' name" baptism and that agree that the trinitarian form is not what the early church preached or even had any inkling towards doing...But, hey, if you want to continue believing the lie your modern traditions have taught you, go right ahead, but just remember that I did, in fact, tell you...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

Yeah, LB, if the miracles are made up then maybe the book of Acts is made up too.

not made up, stylized, there is a HUGE difference...

So what if "in Jesus' name" is stylized?

there are too many different sources that agree with "Jesus' name" baptism and that agree that the trinitarian form is not what the early church preached or even had any inkling towards doing...But, hey, if you want to continue believing the lie your modern traditions have taught you, go right ahead, but just remember that I did, in fact, tell you...

For the record, do you believe that Jesus = God?

 

[Jayrok]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

 

[CrossEyed]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

Yeah, LB, if the miracles are made up then maybe the book of Acts is made up too.

not made up, stylized, there is a HUGE difference...

So what if "in Jesus' name" is stylized?

there are too many different sources that agree with "Jesus' name" baptism and that agree that the trinitarian form is not what the early church preached or even had any inkling towards doing...But, hey, if you want to continue believing the lie your modern traditions have taught you, go right ahead, but just remember that I did, in fact, tell you...

Thanks pal, I'll remember that.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

Yeah, LB, if the miracles are made up then maybe the book of Acts is made up too.

not made up, stylized, there is a HUGE difference...

So what if "in Jesus' name" is stylized?

there are too many different sources that agree with "Jesus' name" baptism and that agree that the trinitarian form is not what the early church preached or even had any inkling towards doing...But, hey, if you want to continue believing the lie your modern traditions have taught you, go right ahead, but just remember that I did, in fact, tell you...

For the record, do you believe that Jesus = God?

yes

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me.  the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also.  But since you're serious.  "worm" references Job 25:4.  Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross.  He was an outcast.  The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author.  He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question.  Great poetry, I agree.  But there is so much more here than poetry.  Poetry lasts this long for a reason.  It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well.  We will all see that God has kept his word.  He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet).  The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me.  the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also.  But since you're serious.  "worm" references Job 25:4.  Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross.  He was an outcast.  The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author.  He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question.  Great poetry, I agree.  But there is so much more here than poetry.  Poetry lasts this long for a reason.  It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well.  We will all see that God has kept his word.  He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet).  The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

Holy Spirit down? God's no longer sovereign? Do you think that men have the ability to interfere with God's plan and He's just up there with His hands tied?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me.  the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also.  But since you're serious.  "worm" references Job 25:4.  Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross.  He was an outcast.  The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author.  He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question.  Great poetry, I agree.  But there is so much more here than poetry.  Poetry lasts this long for a reason.  It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well.  We will all see that God has kept his word.  He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet).  The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

 

[CrossEyed]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

 

[fightingchick]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me.  the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also.  But since you're serious.  "worm" references Job 25:4.  Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross.  He was an outcast.  The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author.  He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question.  Great poetry, I agree.  But there is so much more here than poetry.  Poetry lasts this long for a reason.  It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well.  We will all see that God has kept his word.  He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet).  The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Not to be argumentative, but I didn't say anything about translation or symbolism. (I just want to get that out of the way).I just think you are reading the "whole" of the Psalm wrong. The people at the time of Jesus (the Jews) knew the Psalm better than we did. It's not that some NT writers tried to trick anyone by using the same words. Also, the psalm shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum, "what are the odds it is Jesus?" That misses the point.

I agree that christians and non-christians, take passages out of context to make a point. Here is my take on the "whole."

I was refering to the Psalm when I said that Jesus wasn't talking IN THE PSALM. He wasn't the human author of it, David was. I agree that in Matthew 27: 46 Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Jesus said the same words as David. The Jewish people at the cross were stunned when he said this, because they knew the words of David. The point is that Jesus CLAIMED to be fulfilling the words of David (as he did so many times - claiming to be God). Jesus sends us the message that he is the reason that David would be praising the Lord for his faithfulness, because he knew the Lord would keep his promise. The NT writers were capturing many of these things.

Back to worm again. It's not about what God, David or Jesus, thought about God David or Jesus. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. David was alluding to how PEOPLE would perceive the son of God. He would be despised. I don't disagree with you that David may be talking about himself, as well, thus the parallell between the two. But as in all poetry, there is always deeper meaning to the words. David was sending a message about the Messiah. What he might be like, how he will be received, how him might die, and how that will ultimately be a joyous occasion for us. It will be our salvation.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

Yeah, LB, if the miracles are made up then maybe the book of Acts is made up too.

not made up, stylized, there is a HUGE difference...

So what if "in Jesus' name" is stylized?

there are too many different sources that agree with "Jesus' name" baptism and that agree that the trinitarian form is not what the early church preached or even had any inkling towards doing...But, hey, if you want to continue believing the lie your modern traditions have taught you, go right ahead, but just remember that I did, in fact, tell you...

For the record, do you believe that Jesus = God?

yes

Now you have my interest again. So Jesus = God, but you don't believe in the Trinity? How does that look with reagrd to the relationship of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Are they the same thing just called by different names? As a trinitarian I view them as one being with three distinct personalities - completely seperable yet at the same time one being. It is definitely one of the bigger mysteries to me. So when you say trintarian thought is not part of the Bible, I think I need a better understanding of what you mean.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me.  the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also.  But since you're serious.  "worm" references Job 25:4.  Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross.  He was an outcast.  The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author.  He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question.  Great poetry, I agree.  But there is so much more here than poetry.  Poetry lasts this long for a reason.  It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well.  We will all see that God has kept his word.  He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet).  The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

Holy Spirit down? God's no longer sovereign? Do you think that men have the ability to interfere with God's plan and He's just up there with His hands tied?

for one, yes, the Holy Spirit is down when the church turns thier back completely on God... that is my point. The Catholic Church did not have the Holy Spirit after Nicea, they balsphemed God and God did not accept them.

you are taking the word of men who were not filled with the Spirit and couldn't even lie well enough to cover thier tracks over what the books THEY PICKED OUT say, over what history tells us, etc...

get out of your tradition Cross... history, the Bible itself, etc. is telling you that the tradition is wrong, the Holy Spriit is not going to tell people things when they don't even believe in God...

And God's hands weren't tied, that's why we know they changed things... That's why we know at Nicea they accepted polytheism into the church... That's why they didn't destroy all the writings they didn't like. That's why we know where the changes were made and approximately when...

you are just so stuck in teh dogma nad tradition that you've been taught and so completely un-willing to actually think for yourself that you refuse to see it...

 

[larry_boy_44]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

 

[CrossEyed]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

You're a fool, Larry_boy. And, by the way, thanks for all of your prayers for my dad, he's doing great.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

Yeah, LB, if the miracles are made up then maybe the book of Acts is made up too.

not made up, stylized, there is a HUGE difference...

So what if "in Jesus' name" is stylized?

there are too many different sources that agree with "Jesus' name" baptism and that agree that the trinitarian form is not what the early church preached or even had any inkling towards doing...But, hey, if you want to continue believing the lie your modern traditions have taught you, go right ahead, but just remember that I did, in fact, tell you...

For the record, do you believe that Jesus = God?

yes

Now you have my interest again. So Jesus = God, but you don't believe in the Trinity? How does that look with reagrd to the relationship of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Are they the same thing just called by different names? As a trinitarian I view them as one being with three distinct personalities - completely seperable yet at the same time one being. It is definitely one of the bigger mysteries to me. So when you say trintarian thought is not part of the Bible, I think I need a better understanding of what you mean.

I believe that there is one God and that He, at times, shows Himself to us in 3 different ways. There is no denying that.I just don't see them as seperate at all. A different aspect of the one God? Sure, I could go with that (although it feels inexact)... different "modes" even? I guess...

The "seperate but yet one" thing bothers me, though, because if they are seperate there are multiple gods... you say "BUT THEY ARE ONE!!" but that doesn't make any sense... I mean, I guess I would say that if there are 3 distinct personalities, persons, that, even though they are united together in one power, I would say that there are still 3 gods in heaven... They are seperate beings, with seperate thought, emotion, action, etc., then they are seperate gods and there is no one true God of Israel... does taht make sense? Eventually, even if there is some small distinction, there is no point in pointing it out to the level we have...

Does it bother you any that the "three seperate persons, but one united power" thing was a pagan thought for thousands of years before the church adapted it 150-300 years after Christ died (it took 150 years from the earliest trinitarian thought (Tertullian) to it being adopted)?

and, lastly, the fact is that the whole doctrine of hte trintiy as we see it today is built on a lie, the foundation is a lie and blasphemy, so even if it isn't that now, it was built on it... Nicea was blasphemy, when they said there were 3 gods, it was blasphemy, and we need to seperate ourselves from that heresy as much as we possibly can..

 

[larry_boy_44]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

 

[larry_boy_44]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

You're a fool, Larry_boy. And, by the way, thanks for all of your prayers for my dad, he's doing great.

better to be thought of as a fool by the mindless drones who refuse to even think about thinking for themselves than to give up what God gave me (and that is the right to think and choose and look at what really happened)...

 

[ElGatoLoco]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

 

[CrossEyed]

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

And Benny Hinn. You forgot Benny Hinn.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me.  the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also.  But since you're serious.  "worm" references Job 25:4.  Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross.  He was an outcast.  The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author.  He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question.  Great poetry, I agree.  But there is so much more here than poetry.  Poetry lasts this long for a reason.  It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well.  We will all see that God has kept his word.  He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet).  The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

people can be moved by God, but that move from God needs to be in agreement with the other movements by God... God doesn't EVER change...if He moved the apostles to baptize in Jesus' name, He isn't going to tell us 800 years later (and it was like 800 years later that they changed it) that we should baptize differently...

if He told the first church (and the Jews) that htere was one God, He isn't going to suddenly tell people there were 3... it isn't "no other gods before us" it is "no other gods before ME"...

If "baptize" actually means to immerse, and the early church did immerse (dunk), then He isn't suddenly going to tell the church at ~ 1000 AD that immersion is no longer needed, he doesn't change...

If He demands exact movement through the temple during sacrifice in order for sins to be remitted and moved back a year, than He is always going to have exact movements and commands that we must follow (even if, at face value, they do nothing)...

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't think the verse is Jesus talking at all, so most of your response doesn't make sense to me. the point is not that Jesus is talking, the point is that David makes statements that foreshadow the future.

I almost cut in the whole chapter also. But since you're serious. "worm" references Job 25:4. Job suffered and defined the term "worm" for us. A worm is less than a man, and it descirbes how Christ was treated before he died on the cross. He was an outcast. The first part of psalm 22 is about suffering. David is the author. He asks a question, where is God during our suffering? Christ asks the question. We all ask the question. Great poetry, I agree. But there is so much more here than poetry. Poetry lasts this long for a reason. It foreshadows rather than just mirror truth.

The second part of the Psalm is praise to God from David for his faithfulness. David will praise God out in the open, and it may be foreshadowing Christ doing the same. David further says that this praise will come from others in the future as well. We will all see that God has kept his word. He has not foresaken us. He did what he said he would do - which is send a Messiah. (Some of us see it. Maybe you don't yet). The last part is probably still in the future, when all of the earth praises the Lord.

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

people can be moved by God, but that move from God needs to be in agreement with the other movements by God... God doesn't EVER change...if He moved the apostles to baptize in Jesus' name, He isn't going to tell us 800 years later (and it was like 800 years later that they changed it) that we should baptize differently...

if He told the first church (and the Jews) that htere was one God, He isn't going to suddenly tell people there were 3... it isn't "no other gods before us" it is "no other gods before ME"...

If "baptize" actually means to immerse, and the early church did immerse (dunk), then He isn't suddenly going to tell the church at ~ 1000 AD that immersion is no longer needed, he doesn't change...

If He demands exact movement through the temple during sacrifice in order for sins to be remitted and moved back a year, than He is always going to have exact movements and commands that we must follow (even if, at face value, they do nothing)...

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

So then when are you offering your next burnt sacrifices?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

God never changes his mind?

 

[larry_boy_44]

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?

Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

people can be moved by God, but that move from God needs to be in agreement with the other movements by God... God doesn't EVER change...if He moved the apostles to baptize in Jesus' name, He isn't going to tell us 800 years later (and it was like 800 years later that they changed it) that we should baptize differently...

if He told the first church (and the Jews) that htere was one God, He isn't going to suddenly tell people there were 3... it isn't "no other gods before us" it is "no other gods before ME"...

If "baptize" actually means to immerse, and the early church did immerse (dunk), then He isn't suddenly going to tell the church at ~ 1000 AD that immersion is no longer needed, he doesn't change...

If He demands exact movement through the temple during sacrifice in order for sins to be remitted and moved back a year, than He is always going to have exact movements and commands that we must follow (even if, at face value, they do nothing)...

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

So then when are you offering your next burnt sacrifices?

Jesus was our sacrifice, Cross...

 

[larry_boy_44]

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

God never changes his mind?

I know, I know, the Flood and Soddom and Gommorah... I know...but He really didn't change His command in either of those instances... just because He "repented" doesn't mean that He changed His mind... just because He let Abraham bargain Him down (and not far enough) doesn't mean it meant anything... if there actually were 10 righteous people in S&G, would God have bargained down that far? I would think not...

 

[CrossEyed]

So Jesus didn't really utter the words "My God My God" then? Then why do the NT writers claim Jesus did say it?

Maybe all this is symbolic, as you say. Then what value is there in the Jesus passion narrative, if the scene didn't really take place?

You talk of translations. Given time and effort, the same thing could be said about Muhammad. But I don't want to go there.

The person in the poem is describing himself as a worm and not a man. The person in the poem is also described to be Jesus, according the the NT writers. Jesus was not a worm or less than man... not in God's eyes, he was seen as his son.

King David in the poem is considering himself a worm in the eyes of God, and is asking for help.

Jayrok... you are smarter than this...Do you really need Jesus to say "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"??

If he said it, GREAT!! If he didn't, its still fine... no biggie, the people writing it "stylized" thier stories, kinda like David stylized his poetry, and all of that...

does that phrase really change what Jesus did?

and, I want you to think about this and I'm not totally sure if I think its true, but don't modern Jews have a stake in claiming that waht Jesus did is not what the Messiah is suppose to do? I'm saying that reading a Jewish view on Messianic prophecies that states that Jesus could not be the Messiah is probably biased since they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah... does that make sense? I mean, if I were a Jew I'd be saying Jesus weren't the Messiah, too, and I'm sure I could find OT scriptures to use in ways that would agree with that claim, too, but I would be looking for them and trying to make things fit and things liket hat...

For being such a literalist about the method and mode of baptism, you have a complete lack of logic when it comes to the rest of Scripture. If the rest of the Bible was stylized, embellished, or whatever other word you want to use, that makes some of it untrue. And if some of it is untrue, how do you know what is true and what isn't true? So if any of it isn't true, there's a chance that none of it is true.I would say that anyone who believes the Bible contains lies and/or major inaccuracies and still claims to be a believer is far more illogical than the person who rejects God because of these supposed lies and/or major inaccuracies.

And I use the word "major" to distinguish from simple copying errors that have no effect on the story being communicated.

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

people can be moved by God, but that move from God needs to be in agreement with the other movements by God... God doesn't EVER change...if He moved the apostles to baptize in Jesus' name, He isn't going to tell us 800 years later (and it was like 800 years later that they changed it) that we should baptize differently...

if He told the first church (and the Jews) that htere was one God, He isn't going to suddenly tell people there were 3... it isn't "no other gods before us" it is "no other gods before ME"...

If "baptize" actually means to immerse, and the early church did immerse (dunk), then He isn't suddenly going to tell the church at ~ 1000 AD that immersion is no longer needed, he doesn't change...

If He demands exact movement through the temple during sacrifice in order for sins to be remitted and moved back a year, than He is always going to have exact movements and commands that we must follow (even if, at face value, they do nothing)...

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

So then when are you offering your next burnt sacrifices?

Jesus was our sacrifice, Cross...

Yeah, but that was a change from the OT. The OT commands that sacrifices be offered to God. You just got done saying that God doesn't change His commands.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

Nice, but that isn't the defense I was putting forth. It serves as anectdotal evidence though that the vast majority of Christian churches view this topic one way, while your church does not. Your church might be right and all the others wrong. I guess what it boils down to is that baptism is an integral part of salvation to you, to me not so much. That is probably why there are so many sects of Christianity because this case points out how differences of opinion and emphasis lead to significant doctrinal disagreement (although I don't see it as significant, you do). I am sure there are probably things I see as significant that you might not see as significant.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

God never changes his mind?

I know, I know, the Flood and Soddom and Gommorah... I know...but He really didn't change His command in either of those instances... just because He "repented" doesn't mean that He changed His mind... just because He let Abraham bargain Him down (and not far enough) doesn't mean it meant anything... if there actually were 10 righteous people in S&G, would God have bargained down that far? I would think not...

No, Lawrence, you just said he NEVER changes. That's pretty absolute.C'mon Lawrence, isn't all this railing against the Catholic Church just a way of rationalizing your churches antiCatholic bigotry?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Cross - here's the thing, though, you have no place to talk here... You are so wrapped up in the lie that you've been told that I showed you outright the people who DID EDIT the Bible admitting they edited it and that you've been lied to and you still go "so what? This is still valid"... AND YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY!!!

You want to talk about illogical? Illogical is someone going "yes, we changed it" and you not going "oh, wow, maybe I shouldn't believe what they told me"... but no, your tradition is all you have, you don't have any free thought, you don't have any opinions of your own, all you have is what was crammed down your throat, Cross...

The fact of the matter is that we don't even know who wrote the gospels, we don't know where they came from, and they were AT LEAST the third edition of those books that were canonized (read: the original author's work was copied completely by a different author as a 2nd/3rd edition at least before it was canonized)...

Plus there are FIFTEEN other gospels AT LEAST that the Roman Catholics (who adopted polythiesm and purposefully edited the Bible) tried to hunt down the followers of and burned the books and killed the poeple who had them...

I mean, really, do you realize what the people who decided what was Canon did? They HATED God, Cross... They edited His word, and killed some of His people destorying any record they didn't like of His life...

and yet you buy every word they say?

How about this Cross...

Why were Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John picked over all the other different Jesus stories that there were?

How do you know that God didn't move them to make the changes?

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

So, God just abandoned us since the time of the Apostles until when? Until you were born? Nobody can be inspired or moved by God, but the Apostles and Larryboy and his church.

people can be moved by God, but that move from God needs to be in agreement with the other movements by God... God doesn't EVER change...if He moved the apostles to baptize in Jesus' name, He isn't going to tell us 800 years later (and it was like 800 years later that they changed it) that we should baptize differently...

if He told the first church (and the Jews) that htere was one God, He isn't going to suddenly tell people there were 3... it isn't "no other gods before us" it is "no other gods before ME"...

If "baptize" actually means to immerse, and the early church did immerse (dunk), then He isn't suddenly going to tell the church at ~ 1000 AD that immersion is no longer needed, he doesn't change...

If He demands exact movement through the temple during sacrifice in order for sins to be remitted and moved back a year, than He is always going to have exact movements and commands that we must follow (even if, at face value, they do nothing)...

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

So then when are you offering your next burnt sacrifices?

Jesus was our sacrifice, Cross...

Yeah, but that was a change from the OT. The OT commands that sacrifices be offered to God. You just got done saying that God doesn't change His commands.

it became symbolic rather than literal, no change in the command itself, although a slight change in its execution...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

You're a fool, Larry_boy. And, by the way, thanks for all of your prayers for my dad, he's doing great.

better to be thought of as a fool by the mindless drones who refuse to even think about thinking for themselves than to give up what God gave me (and that is the right to think and choose and look at what really happened)...

...says the mindless drone. I am kidding, but you realize how starnge it looks for you to say everyone else is brainwashed when you yourself are victim to the dogma of your particular denomination. Are you saying that all of your ideas were thoguht up by you and not influenced by the church you attend, the pastors that preach to you, and the likeminded people that you surround yourself with on Sundays?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

Nice, but that isn't the defense I was putting forth. It serves as anectdotal evidence though that the vast majority of Christian churches view this topic one way, while your church does not. Your church might be right and all the others wrong. I guess what it boils down to is that baptism is an integral part of salvation to you, to me not so much. That is probably why there are so many sects of Christianity because this case points out how differences of opinion and emphasis lead to significant doctrinal disagreement (although I don't see it as significant, you do). I am sure there are probably things I see as significant that you might not see as significant.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do...but, and I'm being serious here...

can you give me one good reason that someone would not, AT MINIMUM, do everything in thier power to follow God's command of getting baptized? I mean, what good is it doing to say "God didn't actually require baptism when He commanded it"???

I mean, isn't it required that we follow God's ocmmands (whether He'll send us to hell or not doesn't matter, He still meant it and we should follow it like our souls did depend on it)...

does that make sense?

and, to be quite honest with you, a LARGE part of your argument is "but everyone does it"... There has been very little real argument about why the titles are valid and why baptism ins't necessary other than "that's what everyone teaches"...

 

[larry_boy_44]

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

God never changes his mind?

I know, I know, the Flood and Soddom and Gommorah... I know...but He really didn't change His command in either of those instances... just because He "repented" doesn't mean that He changed His mind... just because He let Abraham bargain Him down (and not far enough) doesn't mean it meant anything... if there actually were 10 righteous people in S&G, would God have bargained down that far? I would think not...

No, Lawrence, you just said he NEVER changes. That's pretty absolute.C'mon Lawrence, isn't all this railing against the Catholic Church just a way of rationalizing your churches antiCatholic bigotry?

He doesn't, and He hasn't...and it has nothing to do with anti-Catholic bigotry, unless you count holding people accountable for thier heresy and blasphemy bigotry...

 

[CrossEyed]

Jesus was our sacrifice, Cross...

Yeah, but that was a change from the OT. The OT commands that sacrifices be offered to God. You just got done saying that God doesn't change His commands.

it became symbolic rather than literal, no change in the command itself, although a slight change in its execution...

The command was for men to offer a sacrifice for sin. Men no longer have to do that. Because it changed when Jesus came. Do you always rest on Saturday, LB? That was a command, you know? Or did that change?

 

[larry_boy_44]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

You're a fool, Larry_boy. And, by the way, thanks for all of your prayers for my dad, he's doing great.

better to be thought of as a fool by the mindless drones who refuse to even think about thinking for themselves than to give up what God gave me (and that is the right to think and choose and look at what really happened)...

...says the mindless drone. I am kidding, but you realize how starnge it looks for you to say everyone else is brainwashed when you yourself are victim to the dogma of your particular denomination. Are you saying that all of your ideas were thoguht up by you and not influenced by the church you attend, the pastors that preach to you, and the likeminded people that you surround yourself with on Sundays?

honestly, KIA, my church would not like most of the things I say... They wouldn't like my social thoughts (we should make lots of things legal even if they are immoral)... They don't like my thoughts on our "dress standards" (they're bunk)... They HATE my music (Christian rock (hardcore stuff... Demon Hunter, Skillet, Flyleaf))... They don't like my clothes, they don't like my thoughts on the Bible (although they don't really know them), they don't like a lot about my beliefs and my relationship with God...If I didn't grow up in the church I go to right now, and they heard all the stuff that is going through my head and some of the stuff I am posting on this MB, they would probably ask me to leave...

how's that for brainwashed, KIA?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I do agree, the OT is much, much more validated than the NT..

You should pick up a copy of the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

why?

and I'm not saying that the OT is completely accurate, just that it is "kept better" if that makes sense... less editing has been done with the OT and it was picked by people who were following God more than the Catholics in the 4th Century...

you think Cross' head exploded when he read my "does it matter if Jesus did <insert miracle here>" post?

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

Nice, but that isn't the defense I was putting forth. It serves as anectdotal evidence though that the vast majority of Christian churches view this topic one way, while your church does not. Your church might be right and all the others wrong. I guess what it boils down to is that baptism is an integral part of salvation to you, to me not so much. That is probably why there are so many sects of Christianity because this case points out how differences of opinion and emphasis lead to significant doctrinal disagreement (although I don't see it as significant, you do). I am sure there are probably things I see as significant that you might not see as significant.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do...

but, and I'm being serious here...

can you give me one good reason that someone would not, AT MINIMUM, do everything in thier power to follow God's command of getting baptized? I mean, what good is it doing to say "God didn't actually require baptism when He commanded it"???

I mean, isn't it required that we follow God's ocmmands (whether He'll send us to hell or not doesn't matter, He still meant it and we should follow it like our souls did depend on it)...

does that make sense?

and, to be quite honest with you, a LARGE part of your argument is "but everyone does it"... There has been very little real argument about why the titles are valid and why baptism ins't necessary other than "that's what everyone teaches"...

I highly encourage anyone that accepts Christ to get baptized and seek membership in a church. I would say that if a person doesn't want to get baptized I would wonder why they would not want to be baptized to make a public commitment to the commitment they have already made to God. I think you are thinking I am on some anti-Baptism campaign but I am not. I simply differentiate between baptism and salvation.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Jesus was our sacrifice, Cross...

Yeah, but that was a change from the OT. The OT commands that sacrifices be offered to God. You just got done saying that God doesn't change His commands.

it became symbolic rather than literal, no change in the command itself, although a slight change in its execution...

The command was for men to offer a sacrifice for sin. Men no longer have to do that. Because it changed when Jesus came. Do you always rest on Saturday, LB? That was a command, you know? Or did that change?

for one, the Saturday part of the Sabbath command wasn't important, it was the once a week part of it... It never mattered what day they did the sabbath on... (care to find me where God says "DO IT ON SATURDAY!!!"??)and the application of the command from God changed, but the command from God didn't. There was still innocent lamb's blood slain (Jesus), and it is still applied to the Holy of Holies (our hearts/in our hearts) after we wash at the basin (baptism)...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me. After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible. After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

Nice, but that isn't the defense I was putting forth. It serves as anectdotal evidence though that the vast majority of Christian churches view this topic one way, while your church does not. Your church might be right and all the others wrong. I guess what it boils down to is that baptism is an integral part of salvation to you, to me not so much. That is probably why there are so many sects of Christianity because this case points out how differences of opinion and emphasis lead to significant doctrinal disagreement (although I don't see it as significant, you do). I am sure there are probably things I see as significant that you might not see as significant.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do...but, and I'm being serious here...

can you give me one good reason that someone would not, AT MINIMUM, do everything in thier power to follow God's command of getting baptized? I mean, what good is it doing to say "God didn't actually require baptism when He commanded it"???

I mean, isn't it required that we follow God's ocmmands (whether He'll send us to hell or not doesn't matter, He still meant it and we should follow it like our souls did depend on it)...

does that make sense?

and, to be quite honest with you, a LARGE part of your argument is "but everyone does it"... There has been very little real argument about why the titles are valid and why baptism ins't necessary other than "that's what everyone teaches"...

I highly encourage anyone that accepts Christ to get baptized and seek membership in a church. I would say that if a person doesn't want to get baptized I would wonder why they would not want to be baptized to make a public commitment to the commitment they have already made to God. I think you are thinking I am on some anti-Baptism campaign but I am not. I simply differentiate between baptism and salvation.

what purpose does it serve? I realize you aren't on an anti-baptism campaign...but what good does it do to say "God didn't mean this command"??? What kind of message is that sending about God's other commands?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

God never changes his mind?

I know, I know, the Flood and Soddom and Gommorah... I know...but He really didn't change His command in either of those instances... just because He "repented" doesn't mean that He changed His mind... just because He let Abraham bargain Him down (and not far enough) doesn't mean it meant anything... if there actually were 10 righteous people in S&G, would God have bargained down that far? I would think not...

No, Lawrence, you just said he NEVER changes. That's pretty absolute.C'mon Lawrence, isn't all this railing against the Catholic Church just a way of rationalizing your churches antiCatholic bigotry?

he doesn't just hate Catholics, he also hates any one that does not follow the tenets of larryism. I am a "born again" evangelical protestant amnd was told I am going to hell by larry. I just can't win.

 

[CrossEyed]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

You're a fool, Larry_boy. And, by the way, thanks for all of your prayers for my dad, he's doing great.

better to be thought of as a fool by the mindless drones who refuse to even think about thinking for themselves than to give up what God gave me (and that is the right to think and choose and look at what really happened)...

...says the mindless drone. I am kidding, but you realize how starnge it looks for you to say everyone else is brainwashed when you yourself are victim to the dogma of your particular denomination. Are you saying that all of your ideas were thoguht up by you and not influenced by the church you attend, the pastors that preach to you, and the likeminded people that you surround yourself with on Sundays?

honestly, KIA, my church would not like most of the things I say... They wouldn't like my social thoughts (we should make lots of things legal even if they are immoral)... They don't like my thoughts on our "dress standards" (they're bunk)... They HATE my music (Christian rock (hardcore stuff... Demon Hunter, Skillet, Flyleaf))... They don't like my clothes, they don't like my thoughts on the Bible (although they don't really know them), they don't like a lot about my beliefs and my relationship with God...If I didn't grow up in the church I go to right now, and they heard all the stuff that is going through my head and some of the stuff I am posting on this MB, they would probably ask me to leave...

how's that for brainwashed, KIA?

So, pretty much you are the only guy in the world that truly understands the message that God was trying to give man in the Bible. Everyone else is wrong except LB. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I don't know if Cross' head exploded, but the statement did surprise me.  After all, your religion - you know, the one that claims I am going to Hell, wuld seem to be one that would not parse any words or stories from the bible.  After all, isn't it you that is hung up on the wording of certain passages that you have used to "prove" that the rest of us heathens are hellbound?

it isn't just the words in the Bible, its the actions of those in power and the historical records that show that Jesus' name baptism is the "one baptism" described in Acts...

So long as you baptize in the name of Yeshua then. Don't go changing it to Jesus, you might be doing it wrong.

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

Nice, but that isn't the defense I was putting forth. It serves as anectdotal evidence though that the vast majority of Christian churches view this topic one way, while your church does not. Your church might be right and all the others wrong. I guess what it boils down to is that baptism is an integral part of salvation to you, to me not so much. That is probably why there are so many sects of Christianity because this case points out how differences of opinion and emphasis lead to significant doctrinal disagreement (although I don't see it as significant, you do). I am sure there are probably things I see as significant that you might not see as significant.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do...but, and I'm being serious here...

can you give me one good reason that someone would not, AT MINIMUM, do everything in thier power to follow God's command of getting baptized? I mean, what good is it doing to say "God didn't actually require baptism when He commanded it"???

I mean, isn't it required that we follow God's ocmmands (whether He'll send us to hell or not doesn't matter, He still meant it and we should follow it like our souls did depend on it)...

does that make sense?

and, to be quite honest with you, a LARGE part of your argument is "but everyone does it"... There has been very little real argument about why the titles are valid and why baptism ins't necessary other than "that's what everyone teaches"...

I highly encourage anyone that accepts Christ to get baptized and seek membership in a church. I would say that if a person doesn't want to get baptized I would wonder why they would not want to be baptized to make a public commitment to the commitment they have already made to God. I think you are thinking I am on some anti-Baptism campaign but I am not. I simply differentiate between baptism and salvation.

what purpose does it serve? I realize you aren't on an anti-baptism campaign...but what good does it do to say "God didn't mean this command"??? What kind of message is that sending about God's other commands?

So on the cross when Jesus said it was finished, he actually meant it's almost finished as soon as you are sprinkled or dunked?

 

[larry_boy_44]

because the fact of the matter is if God wanted them to do things, He would have told the Apostles (the original church) about it, not the church 500 years later that was adopting polytheism... The Catholics denied God, what, 40 years before they decided what was canon?

They didn't know God, and yet we take thier word for everything, why? Basically the answer is because people are so indoctrinated with thier tradition that they are un-willing to even think about the truth and reality of the situation...

This shtick is really getting old.

Cross, I have a suggestion...since reading the Bible is obviously doing you no good (since you don't care what it says anyways) go and open a History book, a REAL ONE, not a Catholic-indorsed one...

and look at what they accepted at Nicea as what God was and where its roots were, trace it from Nicea to Plato to Babylon and Assyria...

and realize that the pagan gods that the Jews dealt with throughout history is the same gods that were accpted into the Church at Nicea...

You're a fool, Larry_boy. And, by the way, thanks for all of your prayers for my dad, he's doing great.

better to be thought of as a fool by the mindless drones who refuse to even think about thinking for themselves than to give up what God gave me (and that is the right to think and choose and look at what really happened)...

...says the mindless drone. I am kidding, but you realize how starnge it looks for you to say everyone else is brainwashed when you yourself are victim to the dogma of your particular denomination. Are you saying that all of your ideas were thoguht up by you and not influenced by the church you attend, the pastors that preach to you, and the likeminded people that you surround yourself with on Sundays?

honestly, KIA, my church would not like most of the things I say... They wouldn't like my social thoughts (we should make lots of things legal even if they are immoral)... They don't like my thoughts on our "dress standards" (they're bunk)... They HATE my music (Christian rock (hardcore stuff... Demon Hunter, Skillet, Flyleaf))... They don't like my clothes, they don't like my thoughts on the Bible (although they don't really know them), they don't like a lot about my beliefs and my relationship with God...If I didn't grow up in the church I go to right now, and they heard all the stuff that is going through my head and some of the stuff I am posting on this MB, they would probably ask me to leave...

how's that for brainwashed, KIA?

So, pretty much you are the only guy in the world that truly understands the message that God was trying to give man in the Bible. Everyone else is wrong except LB. Thanks for clearing that up.

no, I'm still piecing it together myself, Cross, I don't think I know everything, far from it in fact...

and you realize that you are saying exactly what you claim I am saying, right? I mean, by picking a denomination you are saying they are right above everyone else...

 

[ElGatoLoco]

God NEVER changes... yet, if the doctrines the Catholics added/edited are really valid still, God did change His commands...

God never changes his mind?

I know, I know, the Flood and Soddom and Gommorah... I know...but He really didn't change His command in either of those instances... just because He "repented" doesn't mean that He changed His mind... just because He let Abraham bargain Him down (and not far enough) doesn't mean it meant anything... if there actually were 10 righteous people in S&G, would God have bargained down that far? I would think not...

No, Lawrence, you just said he NEVER changes. That's pretty absolute.C'mon Lawrence, isn't all this railing against the Catholic Church just a way of rationalizing your churches antiCatholic bigotry?

He doesn't, and He hasn't...and it has nothing to do with anti-Catholic bigotry, unless you count holding people accountable for thier heresy and blasphemy bigotry...

I have a number of counsins who started making similar arguments to yours several years ago. Back in the day, when I was a kid, most of them didn't not rationalize their contempt, and they were overt about their antiCatholic, antiSemetic feelings. Now it is all about marketing their church and rationalizing their contempt using scripture, but they still think nobody else is correct but them.I am not saying you are necessarily a bigot, Larry. I believe you are just a little...naive and have bought into the rationalization. It is almost cult-like really. I am reminded of the recent South Park episode about Chef.

 

[larry_boy_44]

says the guy who can't even follow the command in his own language...

Larry have you failed to note the multiple times I have said that I was baptized? We differ in that I view baptism as being apart from salvation - necessary because we are commanded to do so, but having no bearing on what Christ did on the cross. You are correct in saying that many Christian churches feel (in your opinion erroneously) the same way. As a matter of fact, until i met you on this message board I was unaware that anyone felt baptism was another step added to salvation.

why do you think "but everyone does it" is a valid way to decide upon doctrine?

Nice, but that isn't the defense I was putting forth. It serves as anectdotal evidence though that the vast majority of Christian churches view this topic one way, while your church does not. Your church might be right and all the others wrong. I guess what it boils down to is that baptism is an integral part of salvation to you, to me not so much. That is probably why there are so many sects of Christianity because this case points out how differences of opinion and emphasis lead to significant doctrinal disagreement (although I don't see it as significant, you do). I am sure there are probably things I see as significant that you might not see as significant.

I do understand where you are coming from, I really do...but, and I'm being serious here...

can you give me one good reason that someone would not, AT MINIMUM, do everything in thier power to follow God's command of getting baptized? I mean, what good is it doing to say "God didn't actually require baptism when He commanded it"???

I mean, isn't it required that we follow God's ocmmands (whether He'll send us to hell or not doesn't matter, He still meant it and we should follow it like our souls did depend on it)...

does that make sense?

and, to be quite honest with you, a LARGE part of your argument is "but everyone does it"... There has been very little real argument about why the titles are valid and why baptism ins't necessary other than "that's what everyone teaches"...

I highly encourage anyone that accepts Christ to get baptized and seek membership in a church. I would say that if a person doesn't want to get baptized I would wonder why they would not want to be baptized to make a public commitment to the commitment they have already made to God. I think you are thinking I am on some anti-Baptism campaign but I am not. I simply differentiate between baptism and salvation.

what purpose does it serve? I realize you aren't on an anti-baptism campaign...but what good does it do to say "God didn't mean this command"??? What kind of message is that sending about God's other commands?

So on the cross when Jesus said it was finished, he actually meant it's almost finished as soon as you are sprinkled or dunked?

everything wasn't finished, you weren't saved the moment He died on the cross...What about repentance/belief? I mean, you say that is required, and you aren't saved until you believe/repent... So what's the difference between saying you aren't saved until you believe/repent or until you believe/repent/are baptized???

I mean, really, either way it wasn't really finished when He said that on the cross...

UNLESS!!!

He didn't mean that everything was finished, and in fact simply meant that His sacrifice, His pain, and His life was finished...