Here's a good one that's long overdue.......
Has The Church Become Irrelevant?
by Chuck Baldwin
So, if you are a Christian and you want to be relevant to the preservation of liberty in this country, you need to get out of these establishment, State-worshipping churches and find yourself an "underground," unaffiliated, or Black Regiment church. And you need to do it quickly!
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090825.html
:P ::)
I read that article with great interest. It has the potential of insulting and disgusting every church going Christian on this forum. They may not like the finger shaking shaming, but the author has the right to post it, after all, it's still a free country. Why shouldn't each denomination have the right to be who they want to be? Even the Catholic church has mass in English now, not all in Latin and no longer demands nonmeat on Fridays. The church should evolve as needed to meet the needs of it's parishioners. Church attendance everywhere declined for a number of years. Some go to drive in services now or watch on TV or listen to radio. Many of us try to LIVE our faith and don't especially feel the need to go to a special building. Others do. There is room for us all. I believe in a loving God and the ability of man to still have a hand in self determination. None of us is perfect, least of all am I. I certainly acknowledge that. But I don't feel the need to go looking for someone to hate either. That of course is a two way street. I don't want people wanting a reason to hate me and hunt me down either. I try to keep up with all the news, not just the viewpoints I already agree with. I think that gives me more to think about and ultimately will make me a more educated, knowledgeable person.
Diane, I respectfully disagree with 99% of your post. However, you do have the right to post your opinion. There was some points in the aritcle that I didn't agree with, some that I did. Personally, I'm not quite sure what is meant by a "Black Regiment" church? I think that a Church should stand on the principles given in the Bible. If it has to evolve to meet the needs of its parishioners, then what is the point? The church should be a rock solid foundation, a place where people can go that they know no matter how much is going on in the world, they have a place they can lean on. As for church attendance, I think that it says more about people then the message of the church.
Do none of your churches have "modern" and "traditional" services? Some here do.The modern services include live music and skits often performed by members of the youth groups. Pike Creek Christian has a whole rock band setup with drums and key boards and all as well as the big organ. I wasn't really talking so much about "what" is said in church, more about how it is presented. As far as having a solid foundation, we are of the same mind on that. I did find the suggestion that people leave their established churches and go underground rather disturbing.
I'm with Billy on this one. I'm of the school of thought that says God sent down religion to us from the heavens, who are we to try and improve upon God's work?
Diane, a "solid foundation" does not include having the modern stuff in church
that you mentioned.
The only thing that I see to be disturbing about leaving an "establsihed church" is that many
of the old line churches are turning to liberalism/modernism. So why stay in church that will not
stand on its founding principles? That ought to disturb a Christian - you'd think.
now now, if we were going to politicize churches, we should remember that Jesus was considered a liberal :P
Think about it,
the meek shall inherit the earth
fed the poor
disliked big business and extravegance
;D
Red, do you expect me to go picket Pike Creek Christian Church? I don't know why they do it that way. I don't know why the Living Waters Church of God asked me to come do a piece on safety the day the pastor did a piece on the on the safety (refuge ) of the church either. I was asked, as part of the service, to talk for 20 min. comparing and contrasting life safety and the safety of the arms of the church. I was happy to do it. I've done programs in many of the local churches as part of their out reach programs, including a CPR class for all the ushers at Newark United Methodist and a defibrillator class for St. Andrews Presbyterian when they did a fund raiser and bought a defibrillator for the church. Now to me, and you are free to disagree, that is what I mean by living my faith. I'd tell about more of them, but then I'd be accused of posting too much and bragging.
Quote from: Anmar on August 29, 2009, 04:15:09 PM
now now, if we were going to politicize churches, we should remember that Jesus was considered a liberal :P
Hmmm No he's not. He's the KING. And being King, he is royalty. And being the King and royalty, his word is all that matters. And his riches are his riches, not ours except by Inheritance.
huh?
Diane, to me it looks like those churches you mentioned are social groups.
What's "out reach" and the purpose of it? I never could understand why
some churches get into the fundraising business. It seems that churches
ought to go by the Bible if they want to be called a church.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 29, 2009, 02:52:03 PM
Do none of your churches have "modern" and "traditional" services? Some here do.The modern services include live music and skits often performed by members of the youth groups. Pike Creek Christian has a whole rock band setup with drums and key boards and all as well as the big organ. I wasn't really talking so much about "what" is said in church, more about how it is presented. As far as having a solid foundation, we are of the same mind on that. I did find the suggestion that people leave their established churches and go underground rather disturbing.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't have anything against churches using modern instruments during their praise and worship, in fact just the opposite. I think that when it comes to praising, worshipping, and celebrating Christ we should use all the blessings He has given us, including electricity (
insert scorching guitar solo here). What I disagree with is how churches these days seem to adjust their principles so that they are more "PC", and not offend anyone.
If your church suits you, why would another bother you? Never mind.
I am really surprised here...Especially by those of you who claim uber-knowledge of the Bible...When God established his church on the face of this His earth, the Emissary that He sent held His services out in the great outdoors...It was indoors that He would lecture the elders and throw temper tantrums, upending money changers' tables. When the Apostles saw Jesus talking with the two greatest prophets, they immediately wanted to erect a temple on that sight and Jesus chided them...Telling them that their business was people, not building temples (I paraphrase roughly here, forgive my lack of uber-knowledge on the Bible). It seems to me that the message here is indeed The Message...It matters not where or how that Message is given or received, only that the receivers ACT on the message...There are a heck of a lot of "Sunday Christians" who mouth the right words ("God loves and created everyone...Love thy brother/sister") on Sunday and then go out on Monday and let everyone see/know just how un-Christian they really are ("You aren't fit for the Kingdom of God...Get thee away from me"). I have a feeling that there are going to be some very surprised people, when they're standing in that line thinking that they're going to be gettin' in through the Pearly Gates, when they get to see who really do get into Heaven WAY ahead of them...And when God gives them their turn, and asks why they didn't obey the simplest of commands ("Love thy brother as you do yourself"...And that means EVERYONE...Whether you personally approve of them or not..."Feed the hungry...Visit those in prision...Clothe those who have not...Take with you only one cloak and one pair of shoes, as those who will hear you will be your supply...The worker is worth the wage"...etc., etc., etc.), I wonder how on earth they're going to justify their lives here...
Catwoman, much of what you are saying is what is being said about Teddy Kennedy's
works. So how about Kennedy? Is he in heaven with all the "good" he has
done?
Obviously, you disagree with much here.
Red, you are asking questions of me that I can only partially speak to but I will answer what I know. The Newark United Methodist Church has a retired nurse who made arrangements for the CPR classes for the ushers, she takes blood pressure form time to time for those who want it, reminds people to get their flu shots and makes arrangements for transportation if needed to various appointments. If anyone hears of someone who needs a new smoke detector or battery, they can call me and we'll go put it up for them. They have a clothes closet and food pantry as many churches do and usually adopt a family during the holidays, as many churches do. They get up and do things, not just pray for people, which of course is very important too. Personally I think helping people take care of each other, however it may be, IS part of the Bible. I'm not crazy about too much fund raising either. If you call that a social club, well, so be it. Thanks Cat, good post
Quote from: Catwoman on August 30, 2009, 08:34:22 AM
I am really surprised here...Especially by those of you who claim uber-knowledge of the Bible...When God established his church on the face of this His earth, the Emissary that He sent held His services out in the great outdoors...It was indoors that He would lecture the elders and throw temper tantrums, upending money changers' tables. When the Apostles saw Jesus talking with the two greatest prophets, they immediately wanted to erect a temple on that sight and Jesus chided them...Telling them that their business was people, not building temples (I paraphrase roughly here, forgive my lack of uber-knowledge on the Bible). It seems to me that the message here is indeed The Message...It matters not where or how that Message is given or received, only that the receivers ACT on the message...There are a heck of a lot of "Sunday Christians" who mouth the right words ("God loves and created everyone...Love thy brother/sister") on Sunday and then go out on Monday and let everyone see/know just how un-Christian they really are ("You aren't fit for the Kingdom of God...Get thee away from me"). I have a feeling that there are going to be some very surprised people, when they're standing in that line thinking that they're going to be gettin' in through the Pearly Gates, when they get to see who really do get into Heaven WAY ahead of them...And when God gives them their turn, and asks why they didn't obey the simplest of commands ("Love thy brother as you do yourself"...And that means EVERYONE...Whether you personally approve of them or not..."Feed the hungry...Visit those in prision...Clothe those who have not...Take with you only one cloak and one pair of shoes, as those who will hear you will be your supply...The worker is worth the wage"...etc., etc., etc.), I wonder how on earth they're going to justify their lives here...
Therein lies the problem. Good works doesn't get you into heaven. Only one thing does and thats the blood. The good works feeding the poor, loving thy brother, clothing the unclothed, does not gain entrance into heaven. The non believers do all those things as well.
Quote from: redcliffsw on August 30, 2009, 08:50:14 AM
Catwoman, much of what you are saying is what is being said about Teddy Kennedy's
works. So how about Kennedy? Is he in heaven with all the "good" he has
done?
Obviously, you disagree with much here.
Uhmm Not if he didn't repent.
This part of this conversation TOtally exhibits the reason I have no use for organized religion. Y'all really think what you have to say about whether or not Ted Kennedy repented to YOUR specifications has ANY bearing on whether or not he is in heaven or whaerever?
What Catwoman said is RIGHT on.
Some of the most UN-caring statements I have ever heard made were by "good" church-goin front row settin hypocrites.
NObody and I mean NObody knows what's in a mans heart or between him and God exCEPT him and God. Nobody else even counts....
What's orgainized religion? Like the ones Diane mentioned?
Quote from: pamsback on August 30, 2009, 10:36:08 AM
This part of this conversation TOtally exhibits the reason I have no use for organized religion. Y'all really think what you have to say about whether or not Ted Kennedy repented to YOUR specifications has ANY bearing on whether or not he is in heaven or whaerever?
Well actually it isn't my specifications. It's the good lords specifications. :) Just repeating what he said.
you wish to argue with the specifications, then argue with him. :)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
QuoteWhat Catwoman said is RIGHT on.
Some of the most UN-caring statements I have ever heard made were by "good" church-goin front row settin hypocrites.
NObody and I mean NObody knows what's in a mans heart or between him and God exCEPT him and God. Nobody else even counts....
That is true, BUT....
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Now we know that of the above things, Mr kennedy Probably did not commit witchcraft, maybe not Adultery but that is a kennedy trait though. And quite frankly most politicians do the above things. Note that it says they will not go to heaven. :)
QuoteWhat's orgainized religion?
Any group of self-righteous people who think they are qualified to judge the state of another persons soul. ANY
QuoteAnd quite frankly most politicians do the above things. Note that it says they will not go to heaven.
well quite frankly...most of us on HERE have done been guilty of some of them......so guess we ain't goin either huh?
As for what it takes.....all it takes is acceptin Jesus as the Son of God period.....worst SOB in the world can go to heaven long as he accepts Jesus before he kicks...THATS the good Lords specifications.
Quote from: pamsback on August 30, 2009, 08:23:29 PM
QuoteWhat's orgainized religion?
Any group of self-righteous people who think they are qualified to judge the state of another persons soul. ANY
QuoteAnd quite frankly most politicians do the above things. Note that it says they will not go to heaven.
well quite frankly...most of us on HERE have done been guilty of some of them......so guess we ain't goin either huh?
As for what it takes.....all it takes is acceptin Jesus as the Son of God period.....worst SOB in the world can go to heaven long as he accepts Jesus before he kicks...THATS the good Lords specifications.
But a apple tree bears apples, pear tree bears pears and the fruits of the flesh are that fruits of the flesh. IF your savd then your fruit changes.
QuoteIF your savd then your fruit changes.
If you get "saved" 30 seconds before you kick it ain't gonna give you a whole lotta time to convince the people who think they KNOW where you are goin LOL. My POINT is.........what YOU all or ME or ANYbody else thinks about where Kennedy(or anybody ELSE for that matter) is or isn't now that he is gone doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference and the fact that so many seem so sure he went to hell when they have NO idea makes me want to puke. I hope he has a front row seat in Heaven myself JUST because I ain't wishin or judgin Hell on ANYbody...........I hope we ALL get front row seats each and every one of us. Just the fact I'm havin this conversation makes me feel judgmental.
You mean there really isn't just room for 144,000 people in heaven, as I was once told? ;)
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 10:43:07 AM
QuoteIF your savd then your fruit changes.
If you get "saved" 30 seconds before you kick it ain't gonna give you a whole lotta time to convince the people who think they KNOW where you are goin LOL. My POINT is.........what YOU all or ME or ANYbody else thinks about where Kennedy(or anybody ELSE for that matter) is or isn't now that he is gone doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference and the fact that so many seem so sure he went to hell when they have NO idea makes me want to puke. I hope he has a front row seat in Heaven myself JUST because I ain't wishin or judgin Hell on ANYbody...........I hope we ALL get front row seats each and every one of us. Just the fact I'm havin this conversation makes me feel judgmental.
I don't know where he went and i said that before. But if i were to base it on his life and actions, then i would have to say he sure didn't go up. Sure he could have had a deathbed confession, but honestly thats very unlikely at his age. Shrug its just the nature of the beast. As far as wishing hell on anyone i wouldn't wish it on anyone, just accept that Most people will end up there by their own choosing.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on August 31, 2009, 10:49:12 AM
You mean there really isn't just room for 144,000 people in heaven, as I was once told? ;)
That is the JW's doctrine, not the christian doctrine. It also pertains to the Jews only, not the gentiles.
it is 12,000 jews from each tribe of israel, that are marked by the mark of God while the rest of the world is marked with the mark of the beast. those 144,000 will survive the tribulation and go on to his kingdom while the rest die and are sent to hell.
Hell.............. hmmmmm :-\ interesting concept...
I wouldn't talk religion with most people if you paid me in Gold...
but I do find this conversation somewhat ahhhhh .. not really humorous.. but interesting........ :)
Quote from: Teresa on August 31, 2009, 02:36:51 PM
Hell.............. hmmmmm :-\ interesting concept...
I wouldn't talk religion with most people if you pad me in Gold...
but I do find this conversation somewhat ahhhhh .. not really humorous.. but interesting........ :)
Well i have no problem talking about it, for the most part theres far too much garbage that is spread. WHen i talk about it, i have the exact quotes and verses to back up what i post. :)
Quote from: Teresa on August 31, 2009, 02:36:51 PM
pad me in Gold...
Would that make you "gilded"? ;D
I know it was a typo, but it was a funny one. 8)
Quote from: Teresa on August 31, 2009, 02:36:51 PM
Hell.............. hmmmmm :-\ interesting concept...
I wouldn't talk religion with most people if you pad me in Gold...
but I do find this conversation somewhat ahhhhh .. not really humorous.. but interesting........ :)
Talkin religion isn't the same as talkin about God I've found LOL talkin "religion" tends to amuse me. ;D
Dang it Flint~!! ;D I wish I WAS padded in Gold.. ( I corrected it) like it matters now. ::) LOL
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 03:02:17 PM
Talkin religion isn't the same as talkin about God I've found LOL talkin "religion" tends to amuse me. ;D
Yea.... same here.
I find that every person has a different view of religion, even those who sit next to one another in church. Only time will tell what is right for you. The bible has been changed and rewritten many times from the original version. Even that version was a compilation of books chosen by a group of men influenced by their own lives and times. Much has been lost through the veils of time.
COOL picture SDM :laugh:
You could fill VOLUMES with what they DIDn't put in the Bible lol
LOL! I wuz lookin' for one with a gas can, but this 'll have to do. :D
Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 31, 2009, 03:23:14 PM
I find that every person has a different view of religion, even those who sit next to one another in church. Only time will tell what is right for you. The bible has been changed and rewritten many times from the original version. Even that version was a compilation of books chosen by a group of men influenced by their own lives and times. Much has been lost through the veils of time.
Lets see, they have released quite a bit of the ORIGINALs, aka dead sea scrolls, and the passages they released are the same as what we have today as far as the NT. The OT is the same today as it was when it was first written. The jews are sticklers for accuracy.
Sorry I've been gone so long...But, my answer to the view on Kennedy:
That view depends entirely upon whether you're looking out over the landscape...
Or...
Up from the bottom of Chappaquidik.
WOW Cat aren't you the creative one, I like that one, Conan or Jay will be trying to use that one.
Let's just say that, when it comes to the Kennedy clan...I'm not impressed with any one of them...They're not fit to put the spit polish on my dress heels.
Quote from: srkruzich on August 31, 2009, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 31, 2009, 03:23:14 PM
I find that every person has a different view of religion, even those who sit next to one another in church. Only time will tell what is right for you. The bible has been changed and rewritten many times from the original version. Even that version was a compilation of books chosen by a group of men influenced by their own lives and times. Much has been lost through the veils of time.
Lets see, they have released quite a bit of the ORIGINALs, aka dead sea scrolls, and the passages they released are the same as what we have today as far as the NT. The OT is the same today as it was when it was first written. The jews are sticklers for accuracy.
You're really off on this. The dead sea scrolls are from the books of the old testament, not the new testament. Furthermore, they are not originals, they are attributed to a smaller sect of judaism and were written hundreds of years after the old testament. If anything, the dead sea scrolls prove that even the old testament has been corrupted by man, as it contains significant differences from other texts. It's very sad, yet the fact remains that the bible has been butchered throughout the centuries to suit the needs of different groups of people. Bible Scholars now are trying to reverse some of the changes that have been done, but how much can they really do when they don't know what the original looked like?
Take for instance, John 3:16. People say that this verse if the foundation of christianity. However, if you use the King James version of the bible, you are not reading the correct translation.
QuoteFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
– John 3:16 (KJV)
The greek bible doesn't say begotten, it says unique. The words mean different things. Unique means that there is nothing else like it, begotten means to physically father. Begotten implies that God physically impregnated Mary (who was roughly 13 when she had Jesus) This was changed when the bible was translated into Latin in an effort to gain converts because it was similar to a story of a pagan god (Much the way christmas was created) Contemporary bible scholars have begun to revise their bibles to change it to unique. Even the King James version had changed it for awhile, but American ministers complained and the phrase was changed back, despite proof that it was not the correct translation.
The most interesting thing about this verse is that this mistranslation is the reason many of the founders became Dieists.
The KJV Bible is a preserved Biblical text.
The modern bible versions including the New King James and NIV are corrupt texts.
In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants.
Steve, you have a better quote off the top of your head knowledge of the bible than I do. This is just a question so if you disagree with my statement I will find some support for my statement and provide it to you.
Under Christian belief is it not true that a person can gain salvation and entrance to heaven even after death, but before being relegated to heaven or hell? I have seen such a statement on what would be considered fundamentalist christian faith websites. Just asking the question.
David
I would be interested in this answer.
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 09:04:06 PM
Steve, you have a better quote off the top of your head knowledge of the bible than I do. This is just a question so if you disagree with my statement I will find some support for my statement and provide it to you.
Under Christian belief is it not true that a person can gain salvation and entrance to heaven even after death, but before being relegated to heaven or hell? I have seen such a statement on what would be considered fundamentalist christian faith websites. Just asking the question.
David
I'm not steve, but i think i can answer. You are referring to the concept of purgatory, i believe. Protestants don't believe in purgatory, as they threw out the books that referenced it for use in the KJV. Protestants believe in the concept of Sola Fide (translated: Faith Alone), meaning that one can only enter heaven by their faith, and it can only be changed while a person is alive. Actions that one my undertake while living are meaningless, thus even according to the protestant belief system, even the worst of criminals, rapists, and mass murderers will enter the gates of heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior. I know it may not seem like it from that thread about Kennedy, but the Christian God of the new testament is forgiving.
Quote from: Anmar on August 31, 2009, 07:36:52 PM
Take for instance, John 3:16. People say that this verse if the foundation of christianity. However, if you use the King James version of the bible, you are not reading the correct translation.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
– John 3:16 (KJV)
Quote[The greek bible doesn't say begotten, it says unique. The words mean different things. Unique means that there is nothing else like it, begotten means to physically father. Begotten implies that God physically impregnated Mary (who was roughly 13 when she had Jesus) This was changed when the bible was translated into Latin in an effort to gain converts because it was similar to a story of a pagan god (Much the way christmas was created) Contemporary bible scholars have begun to revise their bibles to change it to unique. Even the King James version had changed it for awhile, but American ministers complained and the phrase was changed back, despite proof that it was not the correct translation.
The most interesting thing about this verse is that this mistranslation is the reason many of the founders became Dieists.
The greek bible uses μονογενής or pronounced monogenēs and that is begotton not unique. Got it right here. :)
It means
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 09:04:06 PM
Under Christian belief is it not true that a person can gain salvation and entrance to heaven even after death, but before being relegated to heaven or hell? I have seen such a statement on what would be considered fundamentalist christian faith websites. Just asking the question.
No that possibly is a mormon belief. IF i remember right the mormons believe that people can be saved after death if their baptized by proxy by one of their members.
The bible specifically states that you cannot be saved once dead if you have not made that choice in life.
Quote from: Anmar on August 31, 2009, 09:20:03 PM
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 09:04:06 PM
Steve, you have a better quote off the top of your head knowledge of the bible than I do. This is just a question so if you disagree with my statement I will find some support for my statement and provide it to you.
Under Christian belief is it not true that a person can gain salvation and entrance to heaven even after death, but before being relegated to heaven or hell? I have seen such a statement on what would be considered fundamentalist christian faith websites. Just asking the question.
David
I'm not steve, but i think i can answer. You are referring to the concept of purgatory, i believe. Protestants don't believe in purgatory, as they threw out the books that referenced it for use in the KJV. Protestants believe in the concept of Sola Fide (translated: Faith Alone), meaning that one can only enter heaven by their faith, and it can only be changed while a person is alive. Actions that one my undertake while living are meaningless, thus even according to the protestant belief system, even the worst of criminals, rapists, and mass murderers will enter the gates of heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior. I know it may not seem like it from that thread about Kennedy, but the Christian God of the new testament is forgiving.
Purgatory is a concept that was derived from the OT. In the OT the believers died and went to sheol and waited for christ to come on the cross. When he died, he descended into sheol and took them to heaven with him.
No longer does the believer die and go to a waiting place. No biblical evidence that they do.
Steve that is not on a Mormon belief, it was on a fundamentalist christian site. I will find it and provide the supporting bible passages that they give.
I am just asking the question. I am trying to expand my knowledge.
David
Steve can you give me your bible ref. to support your statement?
"The bible specifically states that you cannot be saved once dead if you have not made that choice in life."
Again, not trying to argue just trying to learn. Thanks for your help. I am truly interested.
David
Steve the gist of their belief is the following. Salvation is found in truly knowing God and repenting your sins and that you could come to this revelation just after death when the presence of God would be evident beyond a doubt.. I will find the christian site I saw this on and post it.
David
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 09:45:22 PM
Steve can you give me your bible ref. to support your statement?
"The bible specifically states that you cannot be saved once dead if you have not made that choice in life."
Again, not trying to argue just trying to learn. Thanks for your help. I am truly interested.
David
Well first of all, starting with the OT, no one could save another person by praying them into heaven. The jews were saved by Grace through faith just like we are after christ died but they had the promise and hope of christs death burial and resurrection to look towards instead of like us.
The sacrifices did not save them, it was a demonstration of their faith in the hope of christ.
Secondly this verse itself says.
Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Now there are two types of judgement one is bema seat and the other is the great white throne. Only christians will be at the bema seat wherein their "works" that they preformed after salvation will be evaluated and tossed into the fire to see what works were worthy. The GWT judgment is the judgement of all nonbelievers that died in their unbelief.
Third the passage here shows that Hell is very real and that it is where unbelievers go once they die. You have to also note that this was before Christ died on the cross. So even though men died and went to sheol before christ died on the cross, men also died and went to hell when they were non believers. Sheol was divided into two places one of which a holding place for believers aka purgatory, and the other was hellfire. Also the holding place for believers is also known as the grave in some passages. and in some passages is referenced where the belivers in christ sleep. ALso note that the Bosom of Abraham is the same as sheol or the holding place for those to wait til christ was crucified.
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Steve nothing there says you can't find salvation after death. I am a Methodist. In my belief you must repent your sins before death. To get into heaven you must truly know God and accept him and repent you sins. I do not know of any scripture that precludes you from not truly accepting God after death and getting in to heaven as long as you repented your sins prior to death. I am not sure if I am making myself clear in my question. Do you think you understand what I am saying?
David
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 10:29:21 PM
Steve nothing there says you can't find salvation after death.
Well the rich man in hell had no redemption after death. He was in hell and even lazerus was not able to take him a drop of water. Notice that he never asked to have forgiveness but he asked for water. SO it is reasonable to believe that he had accepted that there was no redemption for him. Secondly, and i appologize i didn't post this part of the passage....
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Now if salvvation were possible after death, then why would hte rich man be asking abrahm to send lazerus to his fathers house to witness to his 5 brothers so they wouldnt' come to hell.
QuoteI am a Methodist. In my belief you must repent your sins before death. To get into heaven you must truly know God and accept him and repent you sins.
Well its pretty simple.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Thats pretty much it. :) Once you have done that you are saved by Grace through faith and live in Grace. All sins past present and future have been covered. So when you repent or turn away from them at salvation thats it. :)
QuoteI do not know of any scripture that precludes you from not truly accepting God after death and getting in to heaven as long as you repented your sins prior to death. I am not sure if I am making myself clear in my question. Do you think you understand what I am saying?
Well i don't understand this, IF you repent and are saved, then you don't have a need to accept God after death. You see once your dead thats it. Look at it this way, if you live 100 years and die, then why would you need more time to accept him. IF you lived 100 years ignoring him, not listening to the warnings then why would there be a second chance?
Its like if i tell you don't jump off that 100 foot cliff, you'll die if you do and you don't listen to my warning and you go ahead and jump and splat your dead. No second chances when you leave the cliff.
Steve thanks for all your work and attempt to explain. Nothing you posted supports your claim "The bible specifically states that you cannot be saved once dead if you have not made that choice in life." I am not trying to be hard headed. Thanks for trying to explain.
David
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 10:54:26 PM
Steve thanks for all your work and attempt to explain. Nothing you posted supports your claim "The bible specifically states that you cannot be saved once dead if you have not made that choice in life." I am not trying to be hard headed. Thanks for trying to explain.
David
one more here.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
When the bible speaks about the dead, it means those who died in unbelief. When it speaks of christians, it says dead in christ.
This passage talks about delivering the dead from the seas, and death brings the dead from hell. The dead aka unbelief. The books are brought out and those who are not found in the book of life, (believers), are then judged by the books of works.
Basically every deed done is recorded. IF your evil then every evil deed is a work. the punishment will fit the deed. but no one at the GWT that is not found in the book of life will get another chance. They will be delivered back to hell, and hell itself will be cast into the lake of fire along with death and satan..
This passage says there are no second chances.
Quote from: Anmar on August 31, 2009, 09:20:03 PM
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 09:04:06 PM
Steve, you have a better quote off the top of your head knowledge of the bible than I do. This is just a question so if you disagree with my statement I will find some support for my statement and provide it to you.
Under Christian belief is it not true that a person can gain salvation and entrance to heaven even after death, but before being relegated to heaven or hell? I have seen such a statement on what would be considered fundamentalist christian faith websites. Just asking the question.
David
I'm not steve, but i think i can answer. You are referring to the concept of purgatory, i believe. Protestants don't believe in purgatory, as they threw out the books that referenced it for use in the KJV. Protestants believe in the concept of Sola Fide (translated: Faith Alone), meaning that one can only enter heaven by their faith, and it can only be changed while a person is alive. Actions that one my undertake while living are meaningless, thus even according to the protestant belief system, even the worst of criminals, rapists, and mass murderers will enter the gates of heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior. I know it may not seem like it from that thread about Kennedy, but the Christian God of the new testament is forgiving.
Thanks to you too Anmar for your take on it. I am a little gun shy about talking religion\theology on here. I think it might look that I am just trying to argue with Steve which is not the case. So until I can think of how to have this discussion I am going to drop it for now. Thanks Steve and Anmar for having the guts to talk religion\theology. I have to think about how to approach this discussion. Maybe we can pick this up at a later date.
David
Quote from: srkruzich on August 31, 2009, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: Anmar on August 31, 2009, 07:36:52 PM
Take for instance, John 3:16. People say that this verse if the foundation of christianity. However, if you use the King James version of the bible, you are not reading the correct translation.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
– John 3:16 (KJV)
Quote[The greek bible doesn't say begotten, it says unique. The words mean different things. Unique means that there is nothing else like it, begotten means to physically father. Begotten implies that God physically impregnated Mary (who was roughly 13 when she had Jesus) This was changed when the bible was translated into Latin in an effort to gain converts because it was similar to a story of a pagan god (Much the way christmas was created) Contemporary bible scholars have begun to revise their bibles to change it to unique. Even the King James version had changed it for awhile, but American ministers complained and the phrase was changed back, despite proof that it was not the correct translation.
The most interesting thing about this verse is that this mistranslation is the reason many of the founders became Dieists.
The greek bible uses μονογενής or pronounced monogenēs and that is begotton not unique. Got it right here. :)
It means
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Sorry steve, any greek orthodox christian will tell you that Jesus was not begotton, rather made. The correct translation is not begotten, it's unique. In fact, the King James version and it's derivatives are THE ONLY versions of the bible that says begotten. You mentioned the dead sea scrolls, i think what you meant was the original greek manuscripts. You see, they went back to the greek manuscripts and from those they re-did the King James version and came out with the New International Version (NIV). This is what is said about the NIV;
QuoteThe core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars. The translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.[5] The intent of the translators was to produce an accurate and readable translation that would fall between formal and functional equivalence[6][7]. An emphasis was placed on thought-for-thought, but it was meant to be no freer than necessary to carry the sense of the original.
The text used for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. The text used in translating the New Testament was the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.[8] Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate. Familiar spellings of traditional translations were generally retained.[9]
Now, what does the NIV say about john 3:16? well i assume you own one, so you can check. Ig you don't here it is:
QuoteFor God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Notice that they removed Begotten, and replaces it with one and only, which is just another way of saying unique. Imagine that, and all this time you've been misquoting the bible.
Quote from: Anmar on September 01, 2009, 12:15:19 AM
QuoteSorry steve, any greek orthodox christian will tell you that Jesus was not begotton, rather made. The correct translation is not begotten, it's unique. In fact, the King James version and it's derivatives are THE ONLY versions of the bible that says begotten. You mentioned the dead sea scrolls, i think what you meant was the original greek manuscripts. You see, they went back to the greek manuscripts and from those they re-did the King James version and came out with the New International Version (NIV). This is what is said about the NIV;
NIV is not a good stand alone translation. Its not a word for word translation, but a thought for thought. Secondly, i have checked and looked, and any version i find has a reference on one and only son that states "his only begotten" Secondly the same greek word used in the greek bible is
μονογενής or monogenēs which is "only begotten". Doesn't matter which way you cook it, the greek says its begotten, not unique. Please give me the greek word for unique and the text in which it specifically says unique in the greek bible.
The NIV is not a word for word translation. I don't go by anything but word for word. word for word cannot be argued with and the NIV translation is mistranslating the word μονογενής monogenēs "yes it is the same word that means begotten"
Also if the translation is to say that christ is only unique, then it would disagree with John 1:1 and if that happens it negates the entire bible. Your verses have to agree.
Steve, Even evangilical bible scholars say begotten is a mistranslation. Those same scholars say that the king James version is NOT a word for word translation, are you more knowledgable of the bible than your own scholars? Even when the King James Version first came out, scholars rejected it immediatly because of its poor translation.
Secondly, you asked for the translation of the greek word. In greek, the word is μονογενῆ which means unique. The greek word for begotten is γεννηθείς. (For reference http://www.greekbible.com/index.php) I'm not fluent in greek, but i have a friend who is and her uncle is a greek orthodox priest, and she assures me that it's not the same word.
Even different versions of the revised King James version don't have the same translation. The English Standard version and the revised standard Version are both derived from the King James, yet one says Begotten and the other just says son (no begotten or unique) yet both versions are acceptable to the church.
As for the contradiction with John 1:1, I don't really see a specific contradiction, but John 1:1 is another passage that has a fuzzy translation. John 1:1 does contradict another section of the bible, which is John 10:35.
As to your point that the translation and contradiction negates the entire bible, thats pretty much my point as well. I could give you a long list of mistranslations and contradictions in the bible, especially the king james version. The bible was written by man, and has been changed by man countless times. The contradiction between John1:1 and 10:35 is so profound, that it puts into question the divinity of Jesus.
The major doctrines of the evangelical movement are constantly being altered in the text because it is now being discovered that they came from poor translations. These doctrines include the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the method of salvation, and the resurection. If you can't trust these doctrines, what else is left? This is exactly why the founders became Deists. Look at what Jefferson did to his bible, he removed every passage that referred to the divinity of Jesus and mention of the trinity.
Quote from: Anmar on September 01, 2009, 09:30:43 AM
Steve, Even evangilical bible scholars say begotten is a mistranslation. Those same scholars say that the king James version is NOT a word for word translation, are you more knowledgable of the bible than your own scholars? Even when the King James Version first came out, scholars rejected it immediatly because of its poor translation.
Secondly, you asked for the translation of the greek word. In greek, the word is μονογενῆ which means unique. The greek word for begotten is γεννηθείς. (For reference http://www.greekbible.com/index.php) I'm not fluent in greek, but i have a friend who is and her uncle is a greek orthodox priest, and she assures me that it's not the same word.
that is the same reference i used and that word does not say unique. It says monogenēs. IF you diasect the word monogenēs you get Mono which means Only, and genēs which is genetic. so the verse would be Only gentic son or only begotten son which is all it could mean as he is genetically the same as his father.
QuoteEven different versions of the revised King James version don't have the same translation. The English Standard version and the revised standard Version are both derived from the King James, yet one says Begotten and the other just says son (no begotten or unique) yet both versions are acceptable to the church.
You know there are some translations that are from preserved scripture and other translations are made from corrupted scripture.
you have tynsdale, luthers, coverdales, mathews, stephens, geneva as well as KJV bible are all word for word translations of the preserved.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, jeromes, alexandrian, wescott &hort, ASV, RSV, NIV and NKJV are all from corrupted text which occured around 331AD. OF which Origen and Eusibius are authors of the corrupted text.
QuoteAs for the contradiction with John 1:1, I don't really see a specific contradiction, but John 1:1 is another passage that has a fuzzy translation. John 1:1 does contradict another section of the bible, which is John 10:35.
What contradiction are you talking about?? The Word is Christ in John 1:1. If your referring to the usage of the word in john 10:35 then that is word like in saying something. The difference is in john 1:1 it says The Word, not the word of God. John 10:35 says the word of God which means his words.
QuoteAs to your point that the translation and contradiction negates the entire bible, thats pretty much my point as well. I could give you a long list of mistranslations and contradictions in the bible, especially the king james version. The bible was written by man, and has been changed by man countless times. The contradiction between John1:1 and 10:35 is so profound, that it puts into question the divinity of Jesus.
really? where???
I don't see how it can call into question the divinity of christ.
john 10:35 says
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
and john 1:1 says
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Where is the contradiction???
QuoteThe major doctrines of the evangelical movement are constantly being altered in the text because it is now being discovered that they came from poor translations. These doctrines include the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the method of salvation, and the resurection. If you can't trust these doctrines, what else is left? This is exactly why the founders became Deists. Look at what Jefferson did to his bible, he removed every passage that referred to the divinity of Jesus and mention of the trinity.
well first of all, jefferson could not have removed every passage that mentioned the trinity. first of all trinity is not mentioned in the bible and second of all the doctrine of the trinity starts in gen 1:1 and goes all the way through Revelations 22:21 :) The story begins with let US make man in OUR own image. Father son holy spirt. :)
In Rev father son and hs are present in the end. So yeah trinity is a doctrine and is supported in the bible.
Christ is divine, and he states his divinity when the soldiers came for him, he was preesent in the firey furnace when nebuchadnezzar threw meshac shadrach and abindigo in the furnace, the unclean spirits that christ cast out of the man into the pigs recognized him as the son of God, :) No the divinity is not in question. :)
Uh, not be given too easily to stating the obvious...But...This is the Political board. This thread needs to be moved to the Religion thread, don't ya think?
No cat, the religion forum specifically states that it's not a place for debate. I have a retort to steves most recent post, but if this is bothering people i'll keep it to myself.