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!
Yes you are correct that the New Testament Has been altered in the first century, and today unfortunately also it is paraphrased to some loss of its wisdom.
Ha ha ha...... Do not jump to conclusion, you can eat pork etc. etc.
.Are you saying the eating pork is sinful? If so, I (edit: the rest of the Muslims and Jews) should agree
Peace be upon you.
Im confused with this. Let me try to decipher.... In Adam all die, In Christ all shall live. Because of our forefather Adam we are destined to die (we have no freewill to change this), but also in Christ all are destined to live (no freewill here either---this goes with rather someone believes the Word when in many different verses all means all or whatever variation of the such). Either way God had made the choice before everything that all are destined to die once, then judgment (which means they are alive again right? You cant judge some thats dead) and all will be alive. Theres no free will in that at all.
Thanks, we have had this before I in turns will make it simple this is promise to the Ancient Israelites, He will bring them back and they ALL will believe and that is set out in a covenant, What about the gentiles as far as I can see in Jesus discourses many will be redeemed/save which mean not all of the Tom. Dick and Harry that ever live, some of us gentiles will be saved.
They did not died in their sin they died in belief and hope, they repented and God had mercy on them, this is prophecy of Messiah and He came, He freed them when He descended to hell that was left empty, I have cited scriptures to you that show what the master said with respect to His new covenant with all of humanity.
It is your doctrine. "Quoting scripture" and then assigning hard and fast theological meaning to it is doctrine. And it's yours, because it sure isn't what the writers had in mind.
I don't believe what you believe about what the scriptures say, because I've actually done my homework.
It's you. Because what you think is being said, and what's actually being said are two different things.
For example, when we hear about the specifics of the Jacob story, let's say, when he cheated Esau out of the birthright, the concept of cheating has nothing to do with the overall theme of God overcoming primogeniture and saving the remnant known as Israel. It "fits" into the saga, but when taken separately, takes on a character of its own that doesn't quite fit the model.
If there were any evidence by your grammar, spelling and syntax that you were as educated as I, then I would concede that you might be in a position to judge me academically. As it stands, though...
You don't really have any idea what I read out of the text. since I'm a universalist, and you claim here that I'm not.
You said it!
Yes, you do, because:
And rarely does the text "say what it says" to us, because we're looking at it through the lens of our own understanding, which is informed by things like cultural norms, a technological, print-driven perspective, as well as the constraints of our language which was neither the spoken, nor written language of the writers. Therefore, you do add and take away. because you:
Which causes you to subract that intention and add your own.
Your take is wrong.
My point is that, because you don't do your homework, and rely on assumption, you don't understand what your scriptural references are really saying, and so you actually prove my arguments.
Yes. Yes, you do.
You're backing everything up with your uninformed interpretation of multiple scriptures. Therefore, you are stating your opinion.
Exactly my point. If you don't understand what the writer means, then you end up looking at it in the wrong way and everything gets screwed up.
It's obvious from what I have been able to decipher of your typing, that you're not thinking critically at all.
It's not a parable. At all.
Your example doesn't fit, because you're not thinking critically. Therefore, the "example" doesn't make sense. Nor has much in any of your posts here. You have demonstrated that, indeed, you don't understand the NT, because you dismiss the intent of writing, in the very least, and fail to conceptualize the theological meaning, leading to some very confused doctrinal statements.
Huh?????
Well AK4, Your theory is depressing, but also to know that my future does not depend on me is unfair, and cannot be so, for God is Holy: The following scripture in Revelation 22: 11 to 15, Half agrees with you, and half with me, for we read; "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." (So they are free to do as they wish right.)
"Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city."
(So here they wash their robes by their own free will, and have the right to the tree of life, and may enter the city; right.)
"Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying."
Those who are outside of the city merited death; but they are obviously still alive; right. ( this is in agreement with what you are saying, in other words all will have life; right.)
The way we understand what it means is by "getting into the heads" of the people who wrote it.
Coming to educated and researched conclusions about the writer's intent is prerequisite to understanding God's intention, since God's intention is implicit in what the writer wrote, and how and why he wrote it, and is not explicit on its own.
But only if you understand the scripture in question, which is best accomplished through exegesis.
Just because your eyes scan the text across the page does not automatically mean that you have comprehension. We learn that little lesson in the first grade. it holds true throughout life.
You assume you know what the text is saying, when it's obvious that you don't, by what you post here. It's also obvious that your technique of doing your homework is flawed, if you don't stop to consider each document in the collection on its own merits.
Yes, because your "proofs" aren't proofs. They're poorly-formulated opinions.
Not if you twist meaning so that they all fit neatly together in the box of your own understanding...
Let me see if I understand you correctly: I understand both the literary form of the Bible as a whole, and the literary form of the parable. Because I understand that the entire Bible is not a parable, that means that I don't understand "God's plan and purpose for creating humankind."
Thank you for proving my point in a most excellent and concise way here.