Harmonious
Well-Known Member
What's that supposed to mean?You haven't been keeping up. . .I think that I've figured it out.
You're a mom with relatively young children. That has to be it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's that supposed to mean?You haven't been keeping up. . .I think that I've figured it out.
You're a mom with relatively young children. That has to be it.
But what does it MEAN to be Christ-like?
People have done terrible things in the name of the Spirit of God. That doesn't really work.
If you want to think about "What Would Jesus Do" as a guide to be Christ-like, I would suggest that he would live according to Torah law. (He didn't do it with a great success rate, but that IS the guide he used. Or at least, that is what he said, when he said he "came to fulfill the law," I would think.)
What's that supposed to mean?
The NIV uses the Nestle text.
Working both sides of the street again. . .these are the translators whose excellence you acknowledgedObviously.
But it uses other texts at whim without notifying the reader. Variant readings are chosen without the reader aware of precisely what they are doing. It looks like they're playing spin the bottle in the dark.
I often jump back and forth between the greek and NASB and find it so simple whereas the same is difficult with NIV and near impossible with KJV
Working both sides of the street again. . .these are the translators whose excellence you acknowledged
(at a time when you thought it would enhance your reputation), here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277276-post680.html.
Now that you know they are in major disagreement with you on a major Christian issue: Scripture is the Word of God written, they've kinda' lost some of their shine. . .
Perhaps.Because people have done terrible things in the name of God does not make them true to the Spirit.
But how do you know?The fruits of the Spirit are clearly outlined and while people may try to attribute their actions to those they most clearly are not. To be Christ-like is to live according to the Spirit.
Here are the fruits of the Spirit:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness,self-control;against such things there is no law. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
That's not true, strictly speaking.There isn't a single event done in the Spirit of Christ by these fruits as a standard that has resulted in terrible things.
If my statement is true that the NIV uses the Nestle text, then why did you make this response, here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2325253-post1292.html ?
The link connects to an "invalid post."The link refers to a post that is not mine.
The link connects to an "invalid post."
Your link to his post works. The link in the post you've quoted of his doesn't work.hmm. Sometimes that happens to me. Refresh it or click on it again and see if that works.
Your link to his post works. The link in the post you've quoted of his doesn't work.
Perhaps.
But how do you know?
I've seen and heard of people mortifying others, particularly orphans and widows, in the name of "teaching them faithfulness."
If they paid attention to Torah law, there are dozens of laws about how to go about helping orphans and widows, and not embarrassing them.
But such mortification was "all in the Spirit of Christ." (You might believe otherwise, but that's what these people were thinking.)
I'm not sure if you are aware, but the point of many Victorian novel authors were social commentators. Besides telling good stories, they were explaining many of the social injustices that were done "in the name of kindness, goodness, and faithfulness", to make sure that the poor and disenfranchised were "made to be humble in spirit", but their "benefactors" had no such compunctions.
The novels had people who were fictitious in name, but were common as examples of what was going on in the history of the time. And the way they were treated was indeed considered "in the Spirit of God."
It's obvious to us that they were arrogant and self-serving people, but they didn't see themselves as such.
I'll ask again: how do you know?
According to Torah law, there are all kinds of laws about treating people. How to speak to people. How to GIVE charity and not make the recipients feel bad about it. How to make sure the poor and the disenfranchised are treated well.
In your heart and mind (and what SHOULD be common sense), such things are obvious.
But it really isn't.
That's not true, strictly speaking.
Your personal situation was explained previously in a post by you. . .What's that supposed to mean?
Let's see now, is that "the essence of civility and politeness" which you claim here? ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2335194-post1273.htmlMy guess is that was just what was flying through his brain at the time.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.Doesn't make a lick of sense.
It is not Greek. . .it is the NIV. . and your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, because of the use of angellous in place of angel, is showing.