Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Did Jesus say kill those who dont believe in me- Luke 19.27 ?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
habshi - 29 Apr 2008 00:00 GMT
    Now doubt the good doctor Andrew Chung will try to wriggle out
of it but this time his goose is cooked.  Shame on Luke a patron saint
of doctors for reporting Jeus's incidenary remarks.

    Until now I always thought Jesus was a non violent freak -
turn the other cheek multiple times kind of guy. Gandhi borrowed that
phrase from the Bible and emasculated the Hindus and they were driven
out of Pakistan, Bangladesh , Kashmir . In fact Hinduism itself
teaches you NOT to accept injustice ( Geeta) and to fight for your
rights .
    In another verse Jesus refuses to heal a non Jewish woman
saying his message is not to be spent on 'swines' !
    Every time a missionary tries to convert a Hindu or Atheist ,
he should be shown this verse in Luke and asked is this what Jesus
meant by dying for our sins.
    If Britain remains a xtian country then all non believers are
in great danger from both mad male monotheist religions.
Luke 19.27

Jesus said
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
bring them here and slay them in my presence."

...
    missionaries will always confuse the issue. The bibles that
present Jesus thus have many violent verses in the Christian bible! I
posted before. Christians have always used bible as a political tool
not as a religious,spiritual tool. Thus they have verses which are
violent but hide them till they convert and then use them to kill
others who refuse. In war both sides invoke the same bible!
Mark 16 verses:

16:18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover
Ishtar - 29 Apr 2008 01:47 GMT
"The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose," said Shakespeare.

Why and how are the "scriptures" so contradictory?

Because they are compilations of many earlier documents, and those
earlier documents were mostly written or formulated as oral traditions
by traumatised survivors of the series of catastrophes and subsequent
survivalist emergencies in which both our behaviour patterns and our
religions are rooted.

Of course you, habbie, can pose as a very wise man by pointing out
contradictions in scriptures, of which others are unaware as they are
too busy earning a living.

But what you are doing is not conducive to societal healing.

And yes, Gandhi was a clown. He weakened the Hindus with his naive
disregard of inter-tribal hatreds.

And if he'd tried that stunt with French or Belgian colonists, he
would have just got a bullet in his brain first time round, but the
British humoured him because the British are too "nice" for their own
good, as is shown by the fact that the British - because of their
"niceness," have now allowed themselves to be colonised by the
European Union.
faeli711 - 29 Apr 2008 05:48 GMT
Hey, you might find this link interesting:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070124111610AAnPxw0

Jesus isn't talking about himself, he's continuing on with the story (or
parable) and talking about the lord (of which the story is about)'s response
to his servants' actions.  

The Bible is just like most literature you read.  You can't take a single
sentence, or a single part, and decide it's meaning from there.  You have to
read the surrounding context and a lot of the times research what was
happening during that time frame to understand the meaning behind the message.

It's like doing explications, especially on really complex literature like
The Scarlet Letter.  If you just read it word for word without trying to
decipher all the hidden literary elements, it isn't going to mean much.
However, if you spend the time explicating the text you learn a lot behind
the meanings of the words.  (You can do the same with The Great Gatsby, and
the list goes on...)

Like most anything, the Bible is often taken out of context to suit the needs
of the person attempting to disqualify it, or use it to their own benefit.
Truly, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose." (Shakespeare) as noted
below.  

There are many verses that are easily misinterpreted, such as the one you
just used.  I am no expert in the Bible, but I have found that a little bit
of research goes a long way.  

Hope that helps.
rainandsnow - 29 Apr 2008 12:11 GMT
>     If Britain remains a xtian country then all non believers are
> in great danger from both mad male monotheist religions.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
> bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Please don't misquote Jesus. This is totally contrary to his teachings
as recorded in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John available here:
www.biblegateway.com )

(eg turn the other cheek, go an extra mile, Jesus didn't let a disciple
use violence to defend him before his arrest, but restored the ear which
had been cut off, the words "Father forgive them" re his crucifiers)

The words you quote above from Luke 19.27 are the last verse of a
parable and not an exhortation - they are what a King in the parable was
saying:

Luke 19:

10 For the Son of Man[a] came to seek and save those who are lost.”

Parable of the Ten Servants.

11 The crowd was listening to everything Jesus said. And because he was
nearing Jerusalem, he told them a story to correct the impression that
the Kingdom of God would begin right away. 12 He said, “A nobleman was
called away to a distant empire to be crowned king and then return. 13
Before he left, he called together ten of his servants and divided among
them ten pounds of silver,[b] saying, ‘Invest this for me while I am gone.’

14 But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We
do not want him to be our king.’

 15 “After he was crowned king, he returned and called in the servants
to whom he had given the money. He wanted to find out what their profits
were. 16 The first servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and
made ten times the original amount!’

 17 “‘Well done!’ the king exclaimed. ‘You are a good servant. You have
been faithful with the little I entrusted to you, so you will be
governor of ten cities as your reward.’

 18 “The next servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made
five times the original amount.’

 19 “‘Well done!’ the king said. ‘You will be governor over five cities.’

 20 “But the third servant brought back only the original amount of
money and said, ‘Master, I hid your money and kept it safe. 21 I was
afraid because you are a hard man to deal with, taking what isn’t yours
and harvesting crops you didn’t plant.’

 22 “‘You wicked servant!’ the king roared. ‘Your own words condemn
you. If you knew that I’m a hard man who takes what isn’t mine and
harvests crops I didn’t plant, 23 why didn’t you deposit my money in the
bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it.’

 24 “Then, turning to the others standing nearby, the king ordered,
‘Take the money from this servant, and give it to the one who has ten
pounds.’

 25 “‘But, master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten pounds!’

 26 “‘Yes,’ the king replied, ‘and to those who use well what they are
given, even more will be given. But from those who do nothing, even what
little they have will be taken away.

27 And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their
king—bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.’”

 28 After telling this story, Jesus went on toward Jerusalem,

I think the words of the king in the parable make sense in the light of
other bible verses which warn of judgement to come, both after death and
 for nations which abandon God and for the world when Jesus returns.
uNmaiviLambi - 29 Apr 2008 14:07 GMT
On Apr 29, 7:11 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> >    If Britain remains a xtian country then all non believers are

> I think the words of the king in the parable make sense in the light of
> other bible verses which warn of judgement to come, both after death and
>   for nations which abandon God and for the world when Jesus returns.

How do you explain these:

Why did Jesus ask for swords?

Luke:

22:36  Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him
take it, and likewise his scrip: and  he that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment, and buy one

22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said
unto them, It is enough.

What about Acts 3-23 openly asking for murder of those who oppose!
rainandsnow - 29 Apr 2008 21:04 GMT
> On Apr 29, 7:11 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said
> unto them, It is enough.

from The Geneva Study Bible:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=lu&chapter=022

"He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and
fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now
there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must
therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves
in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when
he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with
the sword."

> What about Acts 3-23 openly asking for murder of those who oppose!

ACTS 3,23

 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear
that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

- this sounds more like a prophecy to me.
Mike - 29 Apr 2008 23:06 GMT
>> What about Acts 3-23 openly asking for murder of those who oppose!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> - this sounds more like a prophecy to me.

I disagree.  That form of words expresses intent - not simple future.

Signature

Mike

rainandsnow - 30 Apr 2008 00:09 GMT
>>> What about Acts 3-23 openly asking for murder of those who oppose!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I disagree.  That form of words expresses intent - not simple future.

It could do, but if the verse is read in context

(www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203%20;&version=48;)

You will see that it was spoken by Peter who was quoting a prophecy by
Moses.

The prophecy is:

 22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, `A Prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up unto you from your brethren, like unto me; Him shall
ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you.

 23And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that
Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.'

Peter seems to be saying that this was a prophecy of Jesus's coming and
that any one who will not hear his message will be destroyed - a grim
warning.

The Bible has many warnings of what will happen to those who will not
listen to God - and many accounts of the punishments occurring.
uNmaiviLambi - 30 Apr 2008 00:46 GMT
On Apr 29, 7:09 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> The Bible has many warnings of what will happen to those who will not
> listen to God - and many accounts of the punishments occurring.

How do you explain these:

Why did Jesus ask for swords? Are they for future?

Luke:

22:36  Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him
take it, and likewise his scrip: and  he that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment, and buy one

22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said
unto them, It is enough.
M. Ranjit Mathews - 30 Apr 2008 00:59 GMT
> On Apr 29, 7:09 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Why did Jesus ask for swords? Are they for future?

If they were for something other than self defence, he'd have wanted
all of them (including himself) to have swords; he wouldn't have said
two were enough.

> Luke:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said
> unto them, It is enough.
pearl - 30 Apr 2008 10:26 GMT
> On Apr 29, 7:09 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said
> unto them, It is enough.

'Lection LXXVI
..
7. I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, and give them light for their darkness and let the spirit of
love dwell within your hearts, and abound unto all. And again
I say unto you, Love one another, and all the creation of
God And when he had finished, they said, Blessed be God.
...
Lection LXXVIII
..
7. Then came they and laid hands on Jesus. And Simon Peter
stretched forth his hand, and drew his sword and struck a
servant of the high priest's and smote off his ear.
8. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its
place; all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword.
And Jesus touched his ear and healed him.
9. And he said unto Peter, Thinkest thou that I cannot now
pray to my Parent, and He shall presently give me more than
twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be
fulfilled, that thus it must be?
...'
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_8.htm

'..the Roman Catholic Church feared the True Humane Gospel of
Christ more than anything else in the world, because it revealed
the true nature of Jesus' Compassionate life style to all Creatures
and the true messages to be a Christian. Hence it should come
as no great surprise that such humane teachings were banished
in the first place, for there was simply no room for Law-Loving
people, who would not raise arms against their fellow man or any
creature of God, who would not vote in political parties, or
compromise true Kingdom loyalty and Sacred Documents, who
could not be ordered to steal others' goods, or to cheat someone
of their rightful inheritance, who could not be made to eat animal
flesh or drink blood even at the threat of losing their lives, who
could not be made or forced to compromise Pure Worship of the
only True God, and the keeping of the Holy Laws. Yes, the Early
Roman Church needed Flesh Eaters, who dulled their senses
with Flesh Eating and Strong Drink, to march in their Armies.
...'
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/Greatest_Collosal_Fraud_On_Earth.html
uNmaiviLambi - 30 Apr 2008 15:37 GMT
> 'Lection LXXVI
> ..
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> God And when he had finished, they said, Blessed be God.
> ...

Thank you Pearlji. Same problem. They should know there is a different
account of Jesus which is better than "God's word" as in standard
bibles!
pearl - 30 Apr 2008 18:55 GMT
> > 'Lection LXXVI
> > ..
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> account of Jesus which is better than "God's word" as in standard
> bibles!

Thanks again, Tripji.  I'll sit back quietly awhile.  Just to say that
if you
haven't yet looked at http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm ,
now would be a very good time to do so as relevant issues are
covered..

*
uNmaiviLambi - 01 May 2008 02:28 GMT
> Thanks again, Tripji.  I'll sit back quietly awhile.  Just to say that
> if you
> haven't yet looked athttp://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm,
> now would be a very good time to do so as relevant issues are
> covered..

Thanks Pearlji, this is very interesting!
rainandsnow - 30 Apr 2008 10:58 GMT
> On Apr 29, 7:09 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Why did Jesus ask for swords? Are they for future?

Please see my previous response to this point - I quoted a guide which
suggests that Jesus was speaking figuratively - ie he did not mean real
physical swords.
uNmaiviLambi - 30 Apr 2008 15:38 GMT
On Apr 30, 5:58 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Please see my previous response to this point - I quoted a guide which
> suggests that Jesus was speaking figuratively - ie he did not mean real
> physical swords.

So Mark 16-18 is also figurative?

What about John 3-16? Figurative?
rainandsnow - 30 Apr 2008 16:02 GMT
> On Apr 30, 5:58 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> So Mark 16-18 is also figurative?

No. Take it in context. It is clear that many signs and miracles occurred.

> What about John 3-16? Figurative?

no - real.
uNmaiviLambi - 30 Apr 2008 17:37 GMT
On Apr 30, 11:02 am, rainandsnow
<therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 5:58 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> No. Take it in context. It is clear that many signs and miracles occurred.

The point is has any one now drank poison to prove his faith or
handled snakes. Has the pope done that?

> > What about John 3-16? Figurative?
>
> no - real

How do you decide what is real and figurative?

Do you mean to say Jesus's Y sperm came from God?
How come Jesus never said he was the only son of God? How come he
never said his mother was a virgin!
rainandsnow - 01 May 2008 01:25 GMT
> On Apr 30, 11:02 am, rainandsnow
> <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> The point is has any one now drank poison to prove his faith or
> handled snakes. Has the pope done that?

Were there any miracles performed for the purpose of proving faith? They
were more for practical purposes and perhaps also to provide a sign that
there is an unseen power - ie that God is real and present. I'm
currently reading a book called The Heavenly Man about a man in China
quite recently who was severely persecuted for his faith and
relationship with God. This book details many amazing events which can
be nothing other than miracles. Are you saying that you don't believe in
miracles??

>>> What about John 3-16? Figurative?
>> no - real
>
> How do you decide what is real and figurative?

From considering the Bible as a whole.

> Do you mean to say Jesus's Y sperm came from God?

All our everything comes from God. Some believe the Bible teaches that
God is the force that holds the Universe together. If you are asking me
if I believe in the virgin birth and that Jesus was God, then yes I do.

> How come Jesus never said he was the only son of God? How come he
> never said his mother was a virgin!

I don't know if he did or not. Do you disagree with these?
uNmaiviLambi - 01 May 2008 02:05 GMT
On Apr 30, 8:25 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Were there any miracles performed for the purpose of proving faith?

Jesus says any one who believes in him can do all these! That is the
point! Has any of his followers including the pope ever tried these?

Are you saying that you don't believe in
> miracles??

God can do anything He wants! But the point here is has any one who
believes in Jesus done this as he asks them to!

>  From considering the Bible as a whole.

Which bible? There are many and they are so different!

So you choose figurativeness and literalness as convenient modes?

> if I believe in the virgin birth and that Jesus was God, then yes I do.

How come Jesus never said he was God or the only son of God or that
his mother was a virgin?

> I don't know if he did or not. Do you disagree with these?

He never said that in any standard bible. Why not?.
rainandsnow - 01 May 2008 11:46 GMT
> On Apr 30, 8:25 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Were there any miracles performed for the purpose of proving faith?
>
> Jesus says any one who believes in him can do all these!

Where does he say that?

>That is the
> point! Has any of his followers including the pope ever tried these?

I don't believe the Pope to be a follower of Jesus.

>  Are you saying that you don't believe in
>> miracles??
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Which bible? There are many and they are so different!

The bible containing the Word of God - ie
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Son of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

> So you choose figurativeness and literalness as convenient modes?

Deciding between those is part of normal reading comprehension.

>> if I believe in the virgin birth and that Jesus was God, then yes I do.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> He never said that in any standard bible. Why not?.

You don't answer the question. Why not?.

The gospels make very clear that Jesus is the son of God. Jesus does not
shout about this in the gospels, but he often refers to God as his
father. In  John 14 he says:

6  Jesus said unto him, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man
cometh unto the Father, but by Me.
7   If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also; and from
henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him."
8   Philip said unto Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
9   Jesus said unto him, "Have I been so long a time with you, and yet
hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou then, `Show us the Father'
10   Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself; but the Father
that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works.
11  Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else
believe Me for the very works' sake.
12  Verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth in Me, the works
that I do he shall do also; and greater works than these shall he do,
because I go unto My Father.
13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son.
uNmaiviLambi - 02 May 2008 00:09 GMT
On May 1, 6:46 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> The gospels make very clear that Jesus is the son of God. Jesus does not
> shout about this in the gospels, but he often refers to God as his
> father. In  John 14 he says:

No where does he say he is God or the only son of God or that his
mother was a virgin!

Is Jesus the only son of God? See:

   He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -- John 3:18

   God sent his only begotten son into the world. -- 1 John 4:9

Adam was also God's son.

   Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:38

Some of God's sons had sex with women producing a race of giants.

   That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;
and they took them wives of all which they chose. ... There were
giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons
of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to
them. -- Genesis 6:2-4

Satan and his companions were sons of God.

   The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and
Satan came also among them. Job 1:6

   Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present
himself before the LORD. -- Job 2:1

God's sons were present when the universe was created.

   Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the
corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all
the sons of God shouted for joy? -- Job 38:6-7

Christians are God's sons.
   But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God. -- John 1:12

Is Jesus God? See;

Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18
   And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
but one, that is, God.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
   My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 16:19
   So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up
into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

John 8:40
   But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God.

John 14:28
   My Father is greater than I.

John 20:17
   I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your
God.

Acts 17:31
   Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the
world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he
hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the
dead.

1 Corinthians 11:3
   The head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 15:28
   And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son
also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that
God may be all in all.

Colossians 3:1
   Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

1 Timothy 2:5
   For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus

Is Jesus all knowing? See:

Mark 5:30
   Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of
him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?

Mark 13:32
   But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Matthew 8:10, Luke 7:9
   When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed,
Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel
rainandsnow - 02 May 2008 23:35 GMT
> On May 1, 6:46 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> No where does he say he is God or the only son of God or that his
> mother was a virgin!

Do you doubt that?? You quote freely from The Gospels and this is
mentioned there and in the prophecy of Isaiah 7.14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

> Is Jesus the only son of God? See:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Some of God's sons had sex with women producing a race of giants.

I think this is a different use of the word son. It seems clear from the
bible that Jesus was a very different type of son from Adam the father
of the giants (wish I knew more about them). Jesus was God. God became
Jesus. God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are one - and yet in some way
separate. Unlike any other "son", Jesus was able to forgive sins and
perform miracles and atone for our sin - and rose from the dead.

>     That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;
> and they took them wives of all which they chose. ... There were
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Satan and his companions were sons of God.

were created by God. Were angels and are now fallen angels.

>     The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and
> Satan came also among them. Job 1:6
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in
> Israel

Yes very interesting. The trinity is not an easy concept to understand.
Colin Wilson - 03 May 2008 00:05 GMT
> Yes very interesting.

No, really, it isn't. No-one apart from other religious fruitcakes
give a sh.t.

How is your imaginary friend better than their imaginary friend ?

</blue touch paper>

> The trinity is not an easy concept to understand.

Nor is mental illness, which you appear to be demonstrating
masterfully.

I don't have a problem if you want to be deluded in this manner, just
piss off and do somewhere else - belief in $deity$ comes from inside,
so if you want to show us how strongly you believe, keep it to
yourself and meditate on it for the rest of your life*.

*I originally typed "lie" in error, but that would fit perfectly too
rainandsnow - 03 May 2008 21:08 GMT
>> Yes very interesting.
>
> No, really, it isn't. No-one apart from other religious fruitcakes
> give a sh.t.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the 10 commandments were the basis
for English law, and I'd have thought that made this thread more
relevant than many here.

I didn't start this thread but felt compelled to respond to lies by the
OP. The title should give you some idea of the content so if it offends,
please avoid.

> How is your imaginary friend better than their imaginary friend ?
>
> </blue touch paper>

Do you know anyone else who has risen from the dead??

>> The trinity is not an easy concept to understand.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> so if you want to show us how strongly you believe, keep it to
> yourself and meditate on it for the rest of your life*.

On the one hand I have you telling me my beliefs are wrong. On the other
I have the Bible which claims to be the Word of God. I was once an
agnostic but I've found the Bible to be full of wisdom and answers and
believe it is much more than a book. The more I read it the more
compelling it is.  Don't dismiss it out of hand.
Cynic - 03 May 2008 21:43 GMT
>Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the 10 commandments were the basis
>for English law

Consider yourself corrected.

Signature

Cynic

cyberhinwa - 15 May 2008 10:25 GMT
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
WWW.JESUSNEVEREXISTED.COM
Mike_B - 29 Apr 2008 16:32 GMT
>Jesus said
>"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
>bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Not sure of the point of this post as Jesus didn't say that, other than
reporting the words of someone else within a parable.

Signature

Mike_B

rainandsnow - 29 Apr 2008 21:04 GMT
>     In another verse Jesus refuses to heal a non Jewish woman
> saying his message is not to be spent on 'swines' !

Jesus's love and offer of forgiveness extend to all, so your comment
above is questionable to say the least. Which verse do you refer to??
M. Ranjit Mathews - 30 Apr 2008 00:20 GMT
On Apr 29, 1:04 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> >    In another verse Jesus refuses to heal a non Jewish woman
> > saying his message is not to be spent on 'swines' !
>
> Jesus's love and offer of forgiveness extend to all,

He didn't make an offer of forgiveness to most of the people he
preached to. Where can you find "forgiveness" in the Sermon on the
Mount?

> so your comment
> above is questionable to say the least. Which verse do you refer to??

He compared the woman's kind to dogs, not swine. - Mark 7:27-28

Isaiah:
My watchmen are blind, all of them unaware; They are all dumb dogs,
they cannot bark; Dreaming as they lie there, loving their sleep. They
are relentless dogs, they know not when they have enough. These are
the shepherds who know no discretion; Each of them goes his own way,
every one of them to his own gain. - Isaiah 56:10-11

Paul:
Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! - Phillippians 3:2
rainandsnow - 30 Apr 2008 10:56 GMT
> On Apr 29, 1:04 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> preached to. Where can you find "forgiveness" in the Sermon on the
> Mount?

Do you think anyone has ever kept to those rules?? Or even the 10
commandments??

The crux of this is that we can't make it by works alone.

The sermon on the mount can be regarded as a list of the hallmarks of
the perfect man - of which there are none. We all fall short and can not
get to heaven by being good. The only way we can be saved from eternal
damnation is by believing in Jesus. He asked that people believe in him
and follow his teachings. As he died on the cross one of the thieves
with him mocked him. The other realised who he was and asked to be
remembered. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
shalt thou be with me in paradise. OK forgiveness is not mentioned but
is implicit.

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
(Luke 19, 10)

>> so your comment
>> above is questionable to say the least. Which verse do you refer to??
>
> He compared the woman's kind to dogs, not swine. - Mark 7:27-28

If you take a look at the chapter:
(www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207;&version=48;)
You will see that a woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter. He proceed
to do so. Why are you posting lies?
M. Ranjit Mathews - 30 Apr 2008 14:49 GMT
On Apr 30, 2:56 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 1:04 pm, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > Mount?
> Do you think anyone has ever kept to those rules??

Sidestepping the question, eh? Where does he tell that audience that
even if they can't keep to the rules, they can earn forgiveness? In
short, where does he offer them forgiveness?

> Or even the 10 commandments??

He never referred to "the 10 commandments". Once, when he referred to
"the commandments", he was asked "Which commandments?", he replied: No
murder, no adultery, no stealing, no false witnessing, honor parents;
and, love your neighbor. Does that add up to 10 commandments? Is each
one of these commandments on your list of "the 10 commandments"? No
and no? Then, what he called "the commandments" was not "the 10
commandments".

> The crux of this is that we can't make it by works alone.

Where in the Sermon on the Mount does he tell his audience that they
can't make it by works alone? In the case of members of the audience
who heard him only on that occasion, he didn't teach them that they
couldn't make it by works alone. On other occasions too, when people
asked him how to earn eternal life, he didn't teach them that they
couldn't make it by works alone.

> The sermon on the mount can be regarded as a list of the hallmarks of
> the perfect man - of which there are none. We all fall short and can not
> get to heaven by being good. The only way we can be saved from eternal
> damnation is by believing in Jesus.

Then, Jesus wanted most of his audiences to suffer eternal damnation,
since he didn't teach most of his audiences that the only way they
could be saved from eternal damnation was by believing in him. This
includes his audience at the Sermon on the Mount. Why did he want his
audiences to suffer eternal damnation?

> He asked that people believe in him
> and follow his teachings. As he died on the cross one of the thieves
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> You will see that a woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter. He proceed
> to do so. Why are you posting lies?

I didn't say he didn't heal her daughter. I just said it was NOT swine
but dogs that he likened her kind to.
rainandsnow - 30 Apr 2008 16:02 GMT
> On Apr 30, 2:56 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> even if they can't keep to the rules, they can earn forgiveness? In
> short, where does he offer them forgiveness?

Matthew 6.12 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

In this verse Jesus provides a suggested framework for prayer. He
suggests praying for forgiveness.

He also said:

I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew
9.13)

(ie not the self righteous but those who realise their need)

>> Or even the 10 commandments??
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> and no? Then, what he called "the commandments" was not "the 10
> commandments".

He referred to The Law - talking of which he also said:

M22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
 38 This is the first and great commandment.
 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.
 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

" 17"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
 18For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one
jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be
fulfilled" (Matthew 5.17)

The religious leaders of the day were very keen on The Law as based on
the 10 commandments. They thought that adhering to the law would ensure
their salvation. Jesus showed that salvation by this route was unattainable.

>> The crux of this is that we can't make it by works alone.
>
> Where in the Sermon on the Mount does he tell his audience that they
> can't make it by works alone?

Would there be anyone in the audience who thought Oh good, I'm OK then??
Would they not all realise that they fell short and needed help??

In the case of members of the audience
> who heard him only on that occasion, he didn't teach them that they
> couldn't make it by works alone. On other occasions too, when people
> asked him how to earn eternal life, he didn't teach them that they
> couldn't make it by works alone.

Are you thinking of the young man of Matthew 19?? He loved his
possessions too much. I'm sure Jesus's comments gave him something to
think about.

>> The sermon on the mount can be regarded as a list of the hallmarks of
>> the perfect man - of which there are none. We all fall short and can not
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> includes his audience at the Sermon on the Mount. Why did he want his
> audiences to suffer eternal damnation?

He certainly doesn't. There are many verses which give cause for hope
even in the sermon on the mount:

7. 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children, how much more shall your Father who is in Heaven give good
things to them that ask Him?

7. 21 "Not every one that saith unto Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter into
the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in
Heaven.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(John 3.16)

The Lord is . . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3,9)

He came to earth and went through crucifixion to provide an alternative.
That was the whole point of his becoming man. From the account in
Matthew you conclude he didn't put this across very well but it is a
recurrent theme throughout the Bible. Jesus was a skilled communicator
and I don't think he'd have misled the audience on the mount.

7.28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the
people were astonished at His doctrine;
29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

>> He asked that people believe in him
>> and follow his teachings. As he died on the cross one of the thieves
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> I didn't say he didn't heal her daughter. I just said it was NOT swine
> but dogs that he likened her kind to.

Yes sorry. It was the OP who said that. I wonder why he/she should have
posted a lie without first checking it out.
M. Ranjit Mathews - 30 Apr 2008 18:23 GMT
On Apr 30, 8:02 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 2:56 am, rainandsnow <therainands...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
>   38 This is the first and great commandment.

... but it is not on the list of 10 commandments. This reinforces my
point that when Jesus said "commandments", he didn't mean the 10
commandments.

>   39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
> thyself.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Would there be anyone in the audience who thought Oh good, I'm OK then??

No; they would have thought that he had given them goals to try to
attain.

> Would they not all realise that they fell short and needed help??

They could not have realized that they needed help in the form of
blood from crucifixion.

> > In the case of members of the audience
> > who heard him only on that occasion, he didn't teach them that they
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> possessions too much. I'm sure Jesus's comments gave him something to
> think about.

Jesus could have given him more to think about by saying that blood
from his crucifixion would provide an alternative. According to you
failing to believe this will precipitate eternal damnation. Well, it
was Jesus himself who failed to teach this. So, if it will precipitate
eternal damnation, then it was Jesus himself who sentenced most of his
audiences to eternal damnation while claiming to be trying to save
them.

> >> The sermon on the mount can be regarded as a list of the hallmarks of
> >> the perfect man - of which there are none. We all fall short and can not
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> children, how much more shall your Father who is in Heaven give good
> things to them that ask Him?

Asking the Father for good things can be done without believing in
Jesus. So, in this statement, he doesn't give that audience a
requirement to believe in Jesus.

> 7. 21 "Not every one that saith unto Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter into
> the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in
> Heaven.

Asking them to do the will of the Father is not the same as asking
them to believe in Jesus. So, this statement too doesn't require the
audience to believe in Jesus.

> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
> whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> (John 3.16)

Jesus didn't make this statement to his audience at the Sermon on the
Mount. This is not even Jesus' statement.

> The Lord is . . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all
> should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3,9)

Not a statement by Jesus.

> He came to earth and went through crucifixion to provide an alternative.
> That was the whole point of his becoming man. From the account in
> Matthew you conclude he didn't put this across very well but it is a
> recurrent theme throughout the Bible. Jesus was a skilled communicator
> and I don't think he'd have misled the audience on the mount.

If what you say is right, he did mislead them. Conversely, if he
didn't mislead them, then what you say is not right since he didn't
tell them what you say. On the other hand, if he said such things to
some people but not to others, then he was given to teaching different
things to different people which makes it difficult to give his
statements much credence.

> 7.28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the
> people were astonished at His doctrine;

... and what was the doctrine heard by the audience in Matthew 7? That
doctrine doesn't include "crucifixion will provide an alternative"
since nowhere in Matthew 7 does the audience on the Mount hear Jesus
saying "crucifixion will provide an alternative".

> 29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

He taught on the Mount that he would recommend those who did the
Father's will and denounce those who did not the Father's will. He
didn't teach that he would dencounce those who would not accept the
claim that crucifixion provides an alternative.

> > I didn't say he didn't heal her daughter. I just said it was NOT swine
> > but dogs that he likened her kind to.
> Yes sorry. It was the OP who said that. I wonder why he/she should have
> posted a lie without first checking it out.

Perhaps it is an easy error to make. Dogs and swine appear together in
the Sermon on the Mount. "Do not cast unto dogs what is holy; do not
cast pearls before swine." (Quoting from memory, so it might be
slightly different from the text)
rainandsnow - 01 May 2008 01:25 GMT
>>>> The crux of this is that we can't make it by works alone.
>>> Where in the Sermon on the Mount does he tell his audience that they
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> They could not have realized that they needed help in the form of
> blood from crucifixion.

Were they not Jews - brought up on the Old Testament prophecies of a
Messiah who would be the ultimate sacrifice?? I understand (and correct
me please if I'm wrong) that some/most Jews do not believe that Jesus
was the Messiah and are still waiting. So surely they would realise they
needed the prophesied one or what were they waiting for?

>>> In the case of members of the audience
>>> who heard him only on that occasion, he didn't teach them that they
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> audiences to eternal damnation while claiming to be trying to save
> them.

Remember the crucifixion was still in the future at this point. I should
think that Jesus hoped the people or at least the earnest seekers
amongst them, would see that he was the long awaited messiah.

>> 7. 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
>> children, how much more shall your Father who is in Heaven give good
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Jesus. So, in this statement, he doesn't give that audience a
> requirement to believe in Jesus.

OK

>> 7. 21 "Not every one that saith unto Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter into
>> the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> them to believe in Jesus. So, this statement too doesn't require the
> audience to believe in Jesus.

OK

>> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
>> whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
>> (John 3.16)
>
> Jesus didn't make this statement to his audience at the Sermon on the
> Mount. This is not even Jesus' statement.

OK, but surely relevant.

>> The Lord is . . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all
>> should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3,9)
>
> Not a statement by Jesus.

 But about him

>> He came to earth and went through crucifixion to provide an alternative.
>> That was the whole point of his becoming man. From the account in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> things to different people which makes it difficult to give his
> statements much credence.

Jesus said:
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
but by me.  John 14,6

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God.

>> 7.28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the
>> people were astonished at His doctrine;
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> since nowhere in Matthew 7 does the audience on the Mount hear Jesus
> saying "crucifixion will provide an alternative".

I should think they were astonished because they had begun to see that
he was someone extremely special.

>> 29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
>
> He taught on the Mount that he would recommend those who did the
> Father's will and denounce those who did not the Father's will. He
> didn't teach that he would dencounce those who would not accept the
> claim that crucifixion provides an alternative.

Jesus said:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess
also before My Father who is in Heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My
Father who is in Heaven. (Matthew 9, 32,33)

and

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned.  Mark 16.16

I do agree with you that there is an emphasis on works in the sermon on
the mount. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. What is your
contention?
habshi - 02 May 2008 00:15 GMT
   
THREE CHARACTERISTICS SUGGEST THAT JESUS WAS A WOMAN:

    1. He had to feed a crowd, at a moment’s notice, when there was
no food.
    2. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who
just didn’t get it.
    3. Even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more
work for him to do
habshi - 01 May 2008 00:09 GMT
    Although its a parable , its clear that Jesus is the King ,
and the servants are his apostles and those who dont believe in him as
king will be killed in front of him. In fact Jesus and God and Satan
are running a kind of protection racket. If you dont believe in Jesus
(the only way to heaven is through him) then no matter how good a
human you , God and Satan will torment you forever in hellfire !
    Morons who believe in all this junk and not in Mother Nature
who really created us via evolution.

Luke 19.27

Jesus said
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
bring them here and slay them in my presence."

...
    missionaries will always confuse the issue. The bibles that
present Jesus thus have many violent verses in the Christian bible! I
posted before. Christians have always used bible as a political tool
not as a religious,spiritual tool. Thus they have verses which are
violent but hide them till they convert and then use them to kill
others who refuse. In war both sides invoke the same bible!
Mark 16 verses:

16:18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover
rainandsnow - 01 May 2008 11:46 GMT
> "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
> bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Jesus was NOT exhorting his follower to slay enemies. Your
interpretation of what Jesus says in a parable is totally at odds with
the rest of what Jesus says - eg

John 12 46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on
me should not abide in darkness.
 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for
I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Can I suggest that you read through The Gospel of John. I have
difficulty imagining anyone reading through it in an open minded way and
not feeling its ring of truth and not believing that Jesus was genuine.

www.biblegateway.com has it in different languages.

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.