miko33
I'm leaving for awhile
Posts: 14,850
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 1158
I Root For: Might be back?
Location: IDK |
RE: Jesus was a migrant
(12-27-2018 02:15 AM)JRsec Wrote: (12-27-2018 01:51 AM)chiefsfan Wrote: (12-26-2018 10:57 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: (12-26-2018 09:58 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: The Bible can be interpreted a lot of different ways. When Satan chose to challenge Jesus by quoting scripture during the time he was tempted in the desert, he chose to use a scripture to do it. Jesus responded by quoting another scripture (Don't put God to the Test)
As Christians, we read the scriptures to interpret their meaning. You'll find if you spend time researching things that many of the major Christian denominations interpret small parts of the bible differently than others.
Does that make everyone who interprets a bible verse from 2000 years ago differently than you do Satan?
The highlighted statement is the word of Satan. The bible interprets itself and does so quite clearly on all vital doctrines, particularly salvation. As its says, God is not the author of confusion. Satan and the heart of man are the authors of confusion and lies. Even Christians battle against the flesh.
It was Satan himself who twisted the Word of God to Eve to deceiver her, and twisted the scripture to tempt Christ.
Jesus response each time was "ITS IS WRITTEN", "not it is interpreted".
Its Satan himself who tells man in their heart that the Word of God has many interpretations, its the Word of God and the men of God in the Bible, including Christ Himself who said just the opposite.
Disagreements over doctrine are based on the traditions of men in different denominations, not scripture itself. The Jews had the same problem in the OT and Christ rebuked them for it directly in the Gospels.
Ahh yes, Satan. Reminds me of college days when my church group all decided we were on the "Bus to hell" and decided who had which role on the bus. I was supposed to be tied to the back. But driver seemed like a pretty cool role as well
Since we're on the subject of Satan, you realize you just proved my point for me...right? Every denomination has biblical verses that it bases its foundation for beliefs on. Their belief is what they INTERPRET that scripture to mean.
I have literally seen two churches take the same scripture and make it out to mean two different things. Obviously, as you have insisted, both of those churches are obviously following the word of satan… Should I go warn them on their eternal damnation, or should they just find out when they get there? Surprise!
Hell, when James was king of England, he had such a wide set of beliefs that he literally created a version of the bible that's tailored to what he thought. In fact, basically every single version of the bible today has been written out in the best attempt to understand what it says. Obviously it was not written in English.
If you have any sincerity of belief you should search these things out for yourself. They are available in the stacks and sometimes in the archives of theological libraries. Lexicons in Hebrew and Greek can help those who don't read the languages. Then to place it all into context you should refresh you historical knowledge of the time frames involved. A brief study of Roman Senatorial rites and the Emperors role in public ceremony might be revealing as well. A study of Constantine is recommended as well.
Then to compare early church practices which were a lot more informal and familial with contemporary worship in light of what you learned from the Roman rites of court would be a lot easier to do. Then the gulf between the two and when worship changed would be evident, as well as why it changed and how it devolved or evolved from there depending upon your perspective.
Finally I would recommend getting a budgetary layout from each modern denomination and where charity is provided ask for an individual breakdown of those aspects of the budget and subtract building, utilities, salaries, insurance, and denominational materials from that budget and see how much actually makes it to the needy.
Then perhaps you wouldn't be so condescending to Eric while believing firmly in whatever misconception you may have about the hypocrisy of, or practice of, the modern church and its denominations. What he is trying to speak about are actual discrepancies between what early texts of the Bible said, versus what has been redacted into modern transliterations, and what, through the doctrinal positions of denominations, has altered the instruction of the early texts.
I think you might find such an undertaking to be quite revelatory as to why indeed both churches could take opposite positions and both be errant in doing so, and I believe you might find that a simpler, but truthful understanding, can be both gracious and transformative and make a lot more sense than what passes for religion today.
However if all you read are the social guru pseudo intellectual feel good books of pop psychology passing themselves off as "Christian" then you won't get very far. It's the dusty old books in the archive and microfiche that contain the least politicized, least altered, and most informative study information. It neither teaches hate, nor does it acquiesce to the political whims and socially popular lies of the modern era.
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy
Quote:While the earliest forms of written communication date back to about 3,500-3,000 BCE, literacy remained for centuries a very restricted technology closely associated with the exercise of power. It was only until the Middle Ages that book production started growing and literacy among the general population slowly started becoming important in the Western World.2 In fact, while the ambition of universal literacy in Europe was a fundamental reform born from the Enlightenment, it took centuries for it to happen. It was only in the 19th and 20th centuries that rates of literacy approached universality in early-industrialized countries.
The literacy rates for humans for virtually all of human history tells me that the modern evangelical style of careful bible study - to the point of rudimentary study of dead languages to tease out deeper meanings - was not a viable model at the actually earliest point possible until the mid 1500s. Even at this early time, it's a FAR FAR stretch to believe for a second that your common person had the capability to do this. I'd argue that eric's method wouldn't be accessible to your everyday person until the internet age. Even at that, you'd still have large percentages of the population today who wouldn't get the "correct" meanings anyways.
It seems much more likely that the Christian model was supposed to be driven by people in positions of leadership who had the true knowledge and was supposed to disseminate that knowledge to the unwashed masses. Even at its earliest, those home churches were not leaderless. Even in its infancy, there was still a hierarchy.
|
|
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/Aff4ryYiacUO4/giphy.gif)
