|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 27, 2007 2:36:37 GMT -4
The best way to know who is a genuine believer is to read what Jesus and the apostles taught. Then, when you come across people who deny or distort those teachings, and/or who continually and unrepentently do wickedly, you can be fairly sure those people are deluding themselves concerning the faith once given.
Genuine Christians can be found in every denomination and even though I bash the Roman church pretty hard, I acknowledge that there are a few genuine believers in it...usually on their way out.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 27, 2007 4:24:54 GMT -4
Ho hum...same old prejudice against Christianity--or at least, against what you think Christianity is and what you think Christians believe--which is, as usual, WRONG. Yes, well, you've slandered my mother, who's a Catholic. And has been for over sixty years. By definition, they're Christians, because they believe in the divinity of Christ. How about that most of the books of the New Testament weren't written for fifty years or more after the death of Christ? How about that we don't actually know who wrote most of them, though the evidence is that they were almost never written by the historical figures they're attributed to? How about that the book has been mistranslated and miscopied since the process of translation and copying began? Oh, I suppose you'll dispute that last. It's true, though. Certainly the miscopying can be traced for hundreds of years. It's also pretty well documented that, if you're using the King James version, you're using about the worst available translation, since its "going back to original texts" went back to a badly-flawed version that invented several major errors--and then made further changes to fit the prejudices of King James (who had a lot of 'em, several hypocritical). But let's say you doubt me, huh? Okay, then why are there so many variations extant? After all, if it's completely perfect, there shouldn't be so many different phrasings, several of which mean completely different things. Take a good look at several different versions and see how they translate even just the Our Father. Further, you do realize that the Rapture is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere, right? You do realize that it's also a fairly modern addition to the beliefs of only a few variants on the Christian dogma, right? The Catholics certainly don't believe in it; I had to have it explained to me in junior high, and I'd been attending church all my life and Sunday school since kindergarten. Even if it were true, it seems awfully cruel to me. Besides, those "prophecies" are all pretty vague, the Revelation of John was written as current events (of the time), and there are a lot more Revelations that didn't make it past the Nicean Council in the Fourth Century, which is when the final order and contents of the Bible was set.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 27, 2007 10:31:20 GMT -4
Of course we're in the last days. We've been in them for several thousand years. Get with the program! Actually, that's true, we've been in the last days since the resurrection.
Actually, I meant that people, of an enormous variety of faiths, have believed we're in the "last days" for even longer than that. The one consistent aspect of their belief is that they have all been wrong.
It's easy for me to name what would convince me we were in the last days - the last day happening. I do not think, rather casual Roman Catholic that I am - and I care not one whit about your opinion of my faith, or anybody else's for that matter - that I would fail to recognize the Rapture or End Of Time if it actually happened. But what would, even hypothetically, convince you that you are wrong?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 27, 2007 12:33:04 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers takes "Christian" to mean "people I think are saved," and generally identifies non-Christians as "people who do not believe as I do."
I have a broader view of "Christian" as "people who say they beileve in Christ's teachings." That seems the most useful definition. No individual follows those teachings perfectly, so arguing that someone who doesn't follow your particular understanding of those teachings exactly doesn't really believe in Christ seems self-defeating to me.
So the Branch Davidians were Christians, and the Jehovah's Witnessess (who do not believe in the divinity of Christ) are Christians too. I happen to believe they are seriously mistaken on several points of doctrine (some of them rather important doctrines too), but I can't say that they don't really believe in Christ.
Living as if each day might be your last can be a good thing, as long as you also are prepared if today doesn't turn out to be your last day after all.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 27, 2007 21:10:16 GMT -4
The best way to know who is a genuine believer is to read what Jesus and the apostles taught. Then, when you come across people who deny or distort those teachings, and/or who continually and unrepentently do wickedly, you can be fairly sure those people are deluding themselves concerning the faith once given. Genuine Christians can be found in every denomination and even though I bash the Roman church pretty hard, I acknowledge that there are a few genuine believers in it...usually on their way out. Then how can you so categorically dismiss a group as "non-Christian"? And do you propose to determine when people "continually and unrepentently do wickedly"? If people pray at the start of a meeting for God to guide their deliberations, and act according to their deliberations, how is that evil?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 27, 2007 21:58:56 GMT -4
sheeze how did this go from being about 2007 predictions to a relegious debate?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 27, 2007 23:43:19 GMT -4
They're religious predictions, aren't they?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 28, 2007 0:22:20 GMT -4
sheeze how did this go from being about 2007 predictions to a relegious debate? *points at Dead Hoosiers* It's all DH's fault! ;-) Sorry, I'm probably partly responsible.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 28, 2007 1:15:49 GMT -4
I think you're all responsible, sounds like LO needs to hand out month banning for you all.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 28, 2007 1:31:13 GMT -4
I'll admit I'm as guilty as the rest. I'll take the month of April.
I really feel guilty about ignoring 9:IJ's video, too. So I'll take June and July off as well.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 28, 2007 1:38:29 GMT -4
I was talking about the board, not work.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 28, 2007 3:02:55 GMT -4
gillian, I didn't slander your mom. Buy a dictionary. Some modern scholars are putting the dates the books were written much earlier than previously believed. Within 15 years for Mark and within 30 years for some of the epistles. What's important is that they were in circulation during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could have refuted it. Some of the books were written under different names. There is a explanation for this that you won't find in your anti-Christian literature. Try something with a different viewpoint for a more balanced opinion.
Rapture. In Greek it's harpazo. I think we got the word "rapture" from the Latin, but not sure and in a hurry. One major rapture prophecy is in I Thessalonians 4:17 so you know it's not a modern concept. Catholics are taught that the Book of Revelation is history, which is absurd since we're all still here and Christ hasn't returned to set up His kingdom.
Jason, Jesus determines who His disciples are. Jhn 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
sts60, My claim is that the Word of God is never wrong.
PeterB, See response to Jason. Some groups teach doctrines so contrary to the Word of God that its adherents do not have sufficient knowledge of how the new life in Christ is transmitted -- and thereby miss it. For instance, Roman Catholics are taught that they receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, but this is absolutely false. Because they believe this they tend to not search the scriptures for the truth. Some, even having read scripture, reject what it says in preference for the teachings of their priests. Anyhow, that's how I am comfortable with sweeping condemnations of doctrine, not men and women. Eph 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." All doctrines, all religions, have a source. I condemn the source and those who promulgate lies causing men to fall, who ought to know better. To those who reject the gospel, I urge you to examine yourselves to see why it makes you so angry.
All done. Looks like I'm going off topic or something.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 28, 2007 4:05:16 GMT -4
gillian, I didn't slander your mom. Buy a dictionary. You're right; I meant libel. However, since I'm sure you've spoken allowed your views on Catholicism, I'm sure you've slandered her at some point as well. I have a dictionary, but it's too heavy to lift down from its present perch. Oh, that's delightful. Especially coming from you. Quite a lot of the authors I read on the subject are Christians. They've just realized that there's no historical support for Biblical inerrancy and quite a lot against it. Did you ever play "telephone" when you were a kid? Picture that, but for hundreds of years and in several different languages, and branching, and a lot of the people playing don't speak the languages they're using very well, and you'll get close to the history of the written Bible. For example, for the first few hundred years--before that Council of Nicea I mentioned in my last post--most of the copying was done by people who couldn't actually write, exactly; they were more drawing out copies. Since they didn't know what it was supposed to say, they couldn't know they were copying it wrong. What's more, the errors don't get corrected in future copies, because they aren't going back to the originals. They're copying copies, so the errors made on those copies stay in the future copies, and new ones get added--it's actually extraordinarily like DNA in the way it works. Actually, I don't remember being taught anything at all about the Book of Revelation, but that's not the point. The point is, it was an allegorical relating of current events. To those who knew what they were talking about, the allegory was obvious. It wasn't intended to be prophecy. It may have had certain wish-fulfillment aspects to it, but it was about the persecutions of the time, as anyone who has done actual research instead of just assuming they know what they're talking about knows. Yes, and you aren't Jesus. Ergo, you aren't the one making the determination, and you are disobeying His commandment to judge not. Our claim is that the Bible is the word of men. Which, you know, it is; see the history of copying errors. Do you really want to know what makes me angry? The arrogance of people who assume there is only one path to God. The people who are usurping God's privilege to decide how people see Him. There are some marvelous teachings in the Bible, and if people paid more attention to the actual words of Jesus--"judge not lest ye be judged"; "love thy neighbor as thyself"--I'd probably still be Christian.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 28, 2007 10:00:47 GMT -4
gillianren: Our claim is that the Bible is the word of men. Which, you know, it is; see the history of copying errors.
Well, not exactly "ours". I believe the Bible is inspired by God, but the end result is the work of highly imperfect human beings. No one has absolute knowledge of His word; we can only attempt to live up to it. There are plenty of people with plenty of beliefs (or none at all) who do a very good job of it; often much better than those who are convinced they know the Absolute Truth(TM).
P.S. I too apologize for dragging things OT. However, my original comment - that end-of-world prophecies have been around, and wrong, for thousands of years - still stands and is on-topic.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 28, 2007 11:52:52 GMT -4
Jason, Jesus determines who His disciples are. While all of Christ's disciples are Christians, not all Christians are Chirst's chosen disciples.
|
|