Do you have Bible questions today?

[Subduction Zone]

First, you lied once again as you do not answer my questions I highlighted in green -- Are you going to answer my question that I presented? Did you even look at the video? Why do you claim that it's a false dichotomy?. Instead, you ask me more questions and I've already pointed out that I'm not going to do the work to change your mind. You need to do some work, so you learn something. You are too ignorant to discuss complex subjects. I am leaving RF as soon as soon as I can since the mods are on me, so you can have the last word. Besides, this is not a good forum for Christians to discuss their religion. Even my question did not get answered by the OP .

Anyway, I think Jesus is the narrow gate. Following him and repenting for our sins is the way. It's not always easy to repent for our sins as we may not be aware of them. Thus, we have to look to see what warnings God sends us and pray we find and understand our weaknesses. Then, we can automatically go through the narrow gate and be able to endure the hardships life sends us through faith in Jesus Christ. The majority will end up going through the wide gate after death. IOW, life does not always go as we think or have planned. The truth is life isn't easy even if you received all the creature comforts many people want.

Stick to the subject. I thought you were saying the narrow gate vs. the wide gate was the false dichotomy.

As for the rest, it is ad hominem attacks as that's all you got. Thus, you lost again as you always do and just bored the fark out of me. Learn some things and try to provide some links to back up whatever weak arse arguments you have. Basically, you have none, so that's why you presented no links.

Good bye.

I would suggest an apology since I did answer your question in green. Perhaps it is a reading comprehension problem that you have. Here is where I answered it:

"And there is no need to watch the video. It presents a thumbnail. If it is accurate it is a false dichotomy. If not why even use the illustration in the first place?"

And there were no ad hominem attacks in that post. You appear to be rather confused as usual. You may have conflated an observation and an offer to discuss so that you would not repeat an error as an attack. That is a rather strange reaction and implies insecurity.

Lastly what did I post that needs any links? I thought that everything was rather obvious. What parts were too difficult for you? I will gladly support anything that you did not understand.

 

[Deeje]

@capumetu.....I'm sorry for hijacking your thread but the questions were piling up and you did not return to answer them, so I had the time and took the liberty.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

This thread is in Religions Q&A. Debating is not permitted in this forum. Posts created by members with then intent of debate as determined by the RF staff are subject to moderation under Rule 10:

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:
​

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there.
The staff more strictly moderate Rule 10 violations where there is some other rule violation involved, such as preaching in a DIR or trolling a political forum a member doesn't belong to. More benign violations may be subject to informal reminders or moving threads to the appropriate location.​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why do you think that Jesus had to come from heaven to be born as a human child on earth? He had to be the exact equivalent of Adam....i.e. a sinless, perfect human specimen. Being human does not make you sinful....being disobedient and breaking God's law makes you sinful. But part of the effect of Adam's disobedience was that he lost his perfection and so he passed that on as an inheritance to his children.

(Romans 5:12) Jesus offered his perfect human body to atone for what Adam lost....not for Adam, but for his children who were born with this imperfection through no fault on their part.

Sounds like I made a protestant slip. A lot of other christians define humans by their sinful nature (their sin). That's why jesus had to come down to atone for their flesh/sin in order for their spirit (which they believe is who a person is rather than flesh) reunite with god. Christian disobedience to god's law, so far I know, is because of sinful nature (or flesh) to which christ died to redeamn christians from eternal punishment.

Atonement means "at-one-ment" meaning one for one...."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...life for a life".

Jesus was 100% human but without sin. He was the son of God, not God incarnate. The scriptures prove that he could not be his own God and Father....how ridiculous!

(John 20:17)
He died as a human and God raised him up as a spirit just as he said he would. (1 Peter 3:18)

Protestant slip. Many protestants believe sinless=god/divinity not the perfect Adam.

What final consequences are you talking about? God has promised everlasting life to all who obey him.

Jesus obeyed his Father to the letter...suffering an agonizing death as someone who did nothing to deserve it.

I would call that a noble and selfless act.

I'm trying to reward it. If christ was a sinless human, he only experienced pain temporarily and returned to god after death. Since he returned to god, his Crucifixion doesn't mean anything.

In other words, He can't "suffer" when he is promised eternal life.

He didn't. The ransom that was demanded, was paid so why would he have to 'stay dead' if God could resurrect him? His mission was accomplished.

All humans are made the promise of a resurrection. It was never God's intention for anyone to die, so through Jesus he made the way to forgive us of our sins and for those in their graves to be given another chance at life.....one without sin and the interference of satan. (John 5:28-29)

Another question. What does pain mean to those who do not die in christ?

The Bible does in many ways speak for itself, but that doesn't stop humans from putting their own slant of things.

There is one truth, and Jesus said he would arrange for that to be dispensed by those whom he appointed. (Matthew 24:45)

Those who genuinely search for the truth will find it, but those who want God to fit their own personal mold, will come to disappointment...he will never fit it.

Well, coming from the outside looking in JW has their own slant in things too. That aside, though, I like the different points of view on the same subject. It's interesting everyone can derive so many interpretations (and even change, take out, and put in info) from one book and/or set of traditions.

 

[Deeje]

Sounds like I made a protestant slip. A lot of other christians define humans by their sinful nature (their sin). That's why jesus had to come down to atone for their flesh/sin in order for their spirit (which they believe is who a person is rather than flesh) reunite with god. Christian disobedience to god's law, so far I know, is because of sinful nature (or flesh) to which christ died to redeamn christians from eternal punishment

Protestant slip. Many protestants believe sinless=god/divinity not the perfect Adam.

I'm trying to reward it. If christ was a sinless human, he only experienced pain temporarily and returned to god after death. Since he returned to god, his Crucifixion doesn't mean anything.

In other words, He can't "suffer" when he is promised eternal life.

Another question. What does pain mean to those who do not die in christ?

Well, coming from the outside looking in JW has their own slant in things too. That aside, though, I like the different points of view on the same subject. It's interesting everyone can derive so many interpretations (and even change, take out, and put in info) from one book and/or set of traditions.

I'm sorry, but that is so messed up I don't know where to start to even begin to dismantle it.

You know, when you start with a wrong premise, then everything you build on it will be faulty.
I feel like Christendom is a big impressive building that has incredibly weak foundations.....but no one will notice until the crash comes....and I believe it is coming soon.

Your view of Christianity was obviously shaped by Christendom's teachings...and having been raised in it myself, I was glad to get rid of that nonsense and actually study the Bible. I have no unanswered questions now.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm sorry, but that is so messed up I don't know where to start to even begin to dismantle it.

You know, when you start with a wrong premise, then everything you build on it will be faulty.
I feel like Christendom is a big impressive building that has incredibly weak foundations.....but no one will notice until the crash comes....and I believe it is coming soon.

Your view of Christianity was obviously shaped by Christendom's teachings...and having been raised in it myself, I was glad to get rid of that nonsense and actually study the Bible. I have no unanswered questions now.

I only known a few JW friends before the couple moved. I was amazed they asked and was interested in what I believed without needing to over talk me or correct me with what they believe. So, I understood a bit more about JW compared to what I'm most familiar with. The only thing other than beliefs we don't have in common is the perception of christiandom in a negative light as if christiandom teachings have some evil spirit to take over the world. But, they were pretty nice about it thankfully.

I can't really defend christian teachings as truth so when your replies are more informative really. I agree with JW logic about the trinity and a couple of other things. A lot of beliefs protestant, christian, JW, as a group makes sense on their own criteria. I only met a handful of denominations that aren't negative about it, sadly.

But all in all, I can't figure how to shorten it more than that. I'm sure there are other conversations from what I post without defending your views and putting down theirs??

 

[Deeje]

Thank you for explaining a little more.

The only thing other than beliefs we don't have in common is the perception of christiandom in a negative light as if christiandom teachings have some evil spirit to take over the world. But, they were pretty nice about it thankfully.

When Jesus walked the earth he spoke about a future situation in a parable about "wheat and weeds" being sown in the same field.....the 'wheat' sown by himself and the 'weeds' were sown by the devil.

The weed in question is believed to be 'bearded darnel', a poisonous weed found in the Middle East that looks for all the world like wheat in its growing stages. It is sometimes referred to as "wheat's evil twin". It was even used at times as a way to ruin a neighbor's crop if you had something against him.

Now, getting back to the parable....the fine 'wheat' was sown by Jesus whom he identified as "the sons of the Kingdom"...his faithful disciples. The 'weeds', "sons of the wicked one", (those emulate satan) he said were sown by the devil "while men were sleeping". Whether that was speaking about the death of the apostles or the spiritual state of Christianity we can't say for certain. But when Constantine first introduced his "universal (Catholic) religion in Rome, (which was designed, not to glorify Christ, but to consolidate his divided empire) we see a fusion between weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. Whatever the pagans wanted to keep as their favorite celebrations, were just given a thin "Christian" veneer and called by another name.
Zeus became the model for Jesus.

Christendom was born. And for 1500 years the Catholic church was the only 'Christianity' there was. With its immense power and authority, this institution thought it was invincible, holding sway even over Monarchs who would not make a move without consulting the church.

Power, as we know, corrupts those who are drawn to abuse it....and the church was no exception. The Roman Catholic church became a lurking place of some of the most disgraceful excuses for Christians ever to walk the earth....responsible for so much torture and bloodshed....drunk with vast wealth and power, they forsook every ounce of Christianity that Christ had ever taught.

It took a Catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther to speak up about the rot that had set in. He was a very brave man because anyone who dared to question the church's authority was punished by torturing a forced confession, giving the Grand Inquisitor an excuse to put the heretic to death...usually in a most painful way.

When I speak about the foundations of Christendom...this is what I am referring to. It is not bad mouthing the church...it is simply telling the truth that is backed up by history.

Luther was actually responsible for a revolution.....the people got behind him and forced the church to yield. Protestantism rose up and became very powerful , breaking the power of the Roman church, but it did not unite Christianity....it just continued to break it up into bickering factions....so today, what do we see? Where is the Christianity that Christ began? Where are the wheat?

The parable answers that question. Both the wheat and the weeds were allowed to "grow together" in the same "field" until the "harvest time" when Jesus said he would send his reapers (angels) out to collect the weeds and dispose of them, before gathering the wheat into his storehouse. (Matthew 13:36-43)

This is a description of what would happen at the "end" times. It is about what would happen to Christianity from the time of the great apostasy (a falling away from true Christianity) until Christ was to come again to gather his disciples to the place he had gone to prepare for their arrival.

We are living in the time of the harvest and the reapers are about to gather up the weeds and get rid of them.
All that will be left to gather are the wheat. Jesus knows the difference between them and he is the judge.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you for explaining a little more.



When Jesus walked the earth he spoke about a future situation in a parable about "wheat and weeds" being sown in the same field.....the 'wheat' sown by himself and the 'weeds' were sown by the devil.

The weed in question is believed to be 'bearded darnel', a poisonous weed found in the Middle East that looks for all the world like wheat in its growing stages. It is sometimes referred to as "wheat's evil twin". It was even used at times as a way to ruin a neighbor's crop if you had something against him.

Now, getting back to the parable....the fine 'wheat' was sown by Jesus whom he identified as "the sons of the Kingdom"...his faithful disciples. The 'weeds', "sons of the wicked one", (those emulate satan) he said were sown by the devil "while men were sleeping". Whether that was speaking about the death of the apostles or the spiritual state of Christianity we can't say for certain. But when Constantine first introduced his "universal (Catholic) religion in Rome, (which was designed, not to glorify Christ, but to consolidate his divided empire) we see a fusion between weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. Whatever the pagans wanted to keep as their favorite celebrations, were just given a thin "Christian" veneer and called by another name.
Zeus became the model for Jesus.

Christendom was born. And for 1500 years the Catholic church was the only 'Christianity' there was. With its immense power and authority, this institution thought it was invincible, holding sway even over Monarchs who would not make a move without consulting the church.

Power, as we know, corrupts those who are drawn to abuse it....and the church was no exception. The Roman Catholic church became a lurking place of some of the most disgraceful excuses for Christians ever to walk the earth....responsible for so much torture and bloodshed....drunk with vast wealth and power, they forsook every ounce of Christianity that Christ had ever taught.

It took a Catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther to speak up about the rot that had set in. He was a very brave man because anyone who dared to question the church's authority was punished by torturing a forced confession, giving the Grand Inquisitor an excuse to put the heretic to death...usually in a most painful way.

When I speak about the foundations of Christendom...this is what I am referring to. It is not bad mouthing the church...it is simply telling the truth that is backed up by history.

Luther was actually responsible for a revolution.....the people got behind him and forced the church to yield. Protestantism rose up and became very powerful , breaking the power of the Roman church, but it did not unite Christianity....it just continued to break it up into bickering factions....so today, what do we see? Where is the Christianity that Christ began? Where are the wheat?

The parable answers that question. Both the wheat and the weeds were allowed to "grow together" in the same "field" until the "harvest time" when Jesus said he would send his reapers (angels) out to collect the weeds and dispose of them, before gathering the wheat into his storehouse. (Matthew 13:36-43)

This is a description of what would happen at the "end" times. It is about what would happen to Christianity from the time of the great apostasy (a falling away from true Christianity) until Christ was to come again to gather his disciples to the place he had gone to prepare for their arrival.

We are living in the time of the harvest and the reapers are about to gather up the weeds and get rid of them.
All that will be left to gather are the wheat. Jesus knows the difference between them and he is the judge.

I read this and will come back. Let me ask, do you agree with god that the weeds should be thrown away (my words)?

If so, how did you personally came to that conclusion in your heart?

Does it benefit you spiritually?

 

[capumetu]

First, this is a Q&A forum. Not a forum for you to spew your failed opinions of the Christian God and claim it is a false dichotomy. Are you going to answer my question that I presented? Did you even look at the video? Why do you claim that it's a false dichotomy?

You have no evidence that Christianity is a false dichotomy, so you are wrong.

To answer your question, if the other religions are right, then they would have evidence. First, Christians have the universe, Earth, and everything in it. We are here. How did we get here? For the answers, we have the Bible and how science backs it up. For example, we have evidence of the supernatural (Book of Genesis only) with life spirit. The Bible describes life spirit as God's breath. We have the supernatural and the natural existing side-by-side right in front of your nose. Only life begats life and it was demonstrated by Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment; that's the scientific method. This is evidence for God.

Now, you asked what if the Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists are right? Then they should be able to provide the answers to how did we get here and have the evidence for it?

Furthermore, Buddhists do not believe in gods or God and they are considered a religion.

Thus, why don't you list the religion of atheism? It's a belief in no God nor gods without any evidence. To have a belief, then it takes faith. If the truth of atheism cannot reveal itself in a person's lifetime, then it's a sham. It means there is no truth there. What good is it?

The Bible says about atheism:

"And have mercy on those who doubt;" Luke 1:22

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm14:1

What Does the Bible Say About Atheism?

Anyway, this is a Q&A forum. I think I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine above in green?

 

[capumetu]

Clearly that's what you want it to mean, but that isn't the question and you seem incapable of and/or unwilling to answer the question asked. That's fine with me, but it really does suggest that your opening post was not entirely honest.

Jay, I see you are here, what is your question sir?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, I see you are here, what is your question sir?

See below ...

Your Bible translates Isaiah 7:14 as:

Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, ...​

On what grounds do you justify the rendering "will become pregnant"?

Note, for example, both the Jewish Publication Society and the NRSV translate this as:

,,, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. ...​

Even the Anchor Yale Bible Isaiah 1-39 (Blenkinsopp) reads ...

... the young woman is pregnant and about to give birth to a son ...
​

 

[james bond]

You know, if I have to guess, the focus is wrong in the video. With Protestants, the focus is on the narrow gate versus the wide gate. The narrow gate is the way of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the door and the way; it is a path that becomes a journey through life.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

"So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." John 10:7

Many people take the easier wide path. Instead, the focus is on the end of the world prophecy from the person in the video. Again, all prophecies are allegorical. I learned Lazarus was suffering in Hades, but most of the others were sleeping and conscious just like those on the side of the narrow gate. This is a minor error in the video.

The major error, in my opinion, is the focus. The focus should be on the narrow gate and Jesus. It isn't just a gate, but a long path and journey. I would guess the video represents a Catholic pov. Just my opinion.

 

[sooda]

See below ...

​

Maher-shalal-hash-baz was Isaiah's second son. Also called Emmanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, 8:1-3)

The first was Shear-Jashub (Isaiah 7:3).

 

[viole]

I saw this in my youtube inbox today based on someone asking here on RF where do you go after you die?

The screen shot is the basic belief that I was taught as a Christian. After we die, it's too late as we want to go through the narrow gate while we are alive. Yet, most of us, even believers, end up taking the easy route or the wide gate. I thought from reading about near-death experiences that we have follow the light and still find an actual narrow gate. What doe you think? I guess I am asking whether it's automatic that you go the right place in Hades or wrong place depending on which gate you've chosen in life? Do you still have to be aware of going to the right gate?

i wonder what Australians think of that picture.

ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

i wonder what Australians think of that picture.

ciao

- viole

Most of it is a metaphor as it is a prophecy. It is a description of the end of world prophecy. Anyway, one atheist already topped what you just said.

This was after Prof. Lawrence Krauss described what would make him reconsider God not existing. God would have to rearrange the stars to spell out "I am here." A week later a regular atheist person said the people in the other hemisphere would not see it. Furthermore, he said all of the atheists past, present, and future would have to see it to be convinced. I said, "Wow, that was the greatest thing an atheist ever said." It made me think that pain and suffering would be the only thing to convince an atheist and I posted a thread like that on RF a few years ago -- Is Pain And Suffering The Only Way To Convince Atheists That There Is A God. However, in 2019, I learned about the prophecy of "all eyes will see." God had already prophecized it in the Bible for end times. Thus, everything gets settled on Earth and the atheist who made front page news has been answered. Man, if I was an atheist, I would fall down right there and bow for forgiveness and start repenting.

 

[sooda]

I'm sorry, but that is so messed up I don't know where to start to even begin to dismantle it.

You know, when you start with a wrong premise, then everything you build on it will be faulty.
I feel like Christendom is a big impressive building that has incredibly weak foundations.....but no one will notice until the crash comes....and I believe it is coming soon.

Your view of Christianity was obviously shaped by Christendom's teachings...and having been raised in it myself, I was glad to get rid of that nonsense and actually study the Bible. I have no unanswered questions now.

Christendom just means the Christian World. Do JWs define it differently?

 

[Frank Goad]

In 2 Corinthians 5:6-9 it says we can be absent from our bodies.And in verse 9 it says some people are already absent and with the lord.That reminded me of Ecclesiastes 12:7.Sorry if I have posted this in some other forum.Before this one.What I am not getting is 2 Corinthians 5:9 and Ecclesiastes 12:7.

 

[Deeje]

I read this and will come back. Let me ask, do you agree with god that the weeds should be thrown away (my words)?

If God has given people ample warning of his intentions and they ignore his laws and disrespect his right as Universal Sovereign to set the rules, why would I disagree with his decision to eliminate the rebellious troublemakers? What is the point of allowing them to keep on interfering with his purpose for mankind on this earth?

Anyone who has had to contend with a rebel in the house, knows how their behavior affects everyone else. Peace is restored when they leave, or are evicted. Is anyone sorry to see them go?

If so, how did you personally came to that conclusion in your heart?

Does it benefit you spiritually?

Contemplating what God intended at the start, how we lost that prospect because of the first rebel and his abuse of free will, leading others to abuse theirs....and to see how God dealt with that so that we can get it all back....I think his decisions were taking the long term view and addressing all the issues, so that this situation can never happen again....? Is that spiritually beneficial? You bet!!! It’s genius!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If God has given people ample warning of his intentions and they ignore his laws and disrespect his right as Universal Sovereign to set the rules, why would I disagree with his decision to eliminate the rebellious troublemakers? What is the point of allowing them to keep on interfering with his purpose for mankind on this earth?

Anyone who has had to contend with a rebel in the house, knows how their behavior affects everyone else. Peace is restored when they leave, or are evicted. Is anyone sorry to see them go?



Contemplating what God intended at the start, how we lost that prospect because of the first rebel and his abuse of free will, leading others to abuse theirs....and to see how God dealt with that so that we can get it all back....I think his decisions were taking the long term view and addressing all the issues, so that this situation can never happen again....? Is that spiritually beneficial? You bet!!! It’s genius!

Wow....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If God has given people ample warning of his intentions and they ignore his laws and disrespect his right as Universal Sovereign to set the rules, why would I disagree with his decision to eliminate the rebellious troublemakers? What is the point of allowing them to keep on interfering with his purpose for mankind on this earth?

That's a terrible way to see the world and people. It makes me sad. It got people killed all throughout history.

Logically (without morals involved), I guess when people ignore god they will suffer the consequences. What is the benefit of believing in god if not out of fear for the consequences?

How does this have to do with the love of god?
Does JW believe the love of god? if so, how do they define love?

Anyone who has had to contend with a rebel in the house, knows how their behavior affects everyone else. Peace is restored when they leave, or are evicted. Is anyone sorry to see them go?

Those who have peace without god most likely wont go into a house they are not invited to. If they do come without being invited, I can see the consequence since it's not their "home." Though, many people who are at peace without the christian god may accept their mistake and leave. Only the owner finds threat to strangers in their home rather than humility to invite strangers to their table instead.

If you follow the analogy?

Contemplating what God intended at the start, how we lost that prospect because of the first rebel and his abuse of free will, leading others to abuse theirs....and to see how God dealt with that so that we can get it all back....I think his decisions were taking the long term view and addressing all the issues, so that this situation can never happen again....? Is that spiritually beneficial? You bet!!! It’s genius!

I mean more is it beneficial for believers that non-believers suffer consequences by you believing they rebelled against god?

I'm not sure how death as a consequence brings people to the love of god rather than fear of him.

Do you believe god out of fear?