The Passion of the Christ

[TWA Dude]

This may be why there is such animosity against Messianic Jews. So-called "mainstream" Jews are not allowed to have a belief other than the one of the leading Rabbis who steer Judaism.

Sometime in the '90s the Lubavicher Rabbi Schneerson in Brooklyn died. Many amongst his Hassidic sect started calling him the Messiah. In fact, in Israel (and for all I know Brooklyn) today posters of the late Schneerson have the caption "King Messiah". It's very difficult to find a "mainstream" in Judaism. Having said that even the most Reform and liberal Rabbis accept the basic tenet that Jesus was not the Messiah -- to believe in Jesus is simply not Judaism. You can't have it both ways. I bear no animosity towards "Messianic Jews"; I simply view them as a Christians.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: Part I

Have you read any of the Talmud? If not then why? Seeing as you're not Jewish I wouldn't expect you to read texts that define how a Jew must lead his life. By the same token why must I read the Christian Bible? Like yours, my beliefs won't be changed so easily.

No, I haven't. Frankly, I've never had access to the Talmud. I do have a copy (many copies) of the Old Testament, which I thought represented a good portion of the Jewish religion. If I were to engage in an intellectual discussion about Judaism, I would feel compelled to seek out and read the Talmud. I thought you were engaged in an intellectual discussion about Christianity, so I find it odd that you do it from such an uninformed position.

I have on one of my bookshelves a copy of the Qu'ran that I picked up during one of my many trips to Saudi Arabia, and I would read more of it if I were to engage in an intellectual discussion about Islam. I've read enough of it to know that they condemn Jews and Christians, and that's enough for me right now. Beyond that, I know what you mean. It gets kind of boring. Might I suggest that you read the gospel of Matthew. It begins with a geneology of Jesus. I'm sure you must appreciate the importance of geneaology. I'm not asking you to believe what you read, just read it. Then at least you'll know what's being talked about. It can't hurt you.

 

[Timebuilder]

Having said that even the most Reform and liberal Rabbis accept the basic tenet that Jesus was not the Messiah -- to believe in Jesus is simply not Judaism.

Fuuny.

I'll bet that's what Caiaphas said, too. Perhaps right there is where the Jews got off the track. To my mind, a Christian is just a kind of Jew or Gentile who has recognized the Messiah. Sholom!

 

[Timebuilder]

This thread was started 15 days ago.

3,237 reads.



Someone is interested in this.

 

[Super 80]

Re: Part I

1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

A. Technically, Ezekiel says of God that His dwelling place will be with them. He will place His sanctuary in their midst, not build a third Temple. The New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven in Revelation is a multiple account to this prophecy. Another would be the rock that is cut out of mountain, but not with human hands -meaning by God- that also grew into a mountain that filled the whole land from Daniel 2:31-45.

Yes this is a prophecy not fulfilled by Jesus, yet.

B. While yes, in the minority, all the Jews will be gathered, this also recalls Ezekiel's division of the land in 47:21 into chapter 48. This future event I would assign to the Millennial period.

Note the difference between the two Temples in Ezekiel, the first I call the Tribulation Temple, measured by John in Revelation 11 and recorded by Ezekiel in 40 through 43. Note the change in the Temple as the LORD fills it at 44:4. The Living Water that pours out from the from under the threshold of the Temple marks this Temple as no earthly building could have. This water has the amazing property to deepen as it flows outward, restoring the land and providing for the people. This Temple in the last chapters of Ezekiel is the Millennial Temple in the New Jerusalem.

However, notice in the series of verses you have quoted showing the Jews coming together Isaiah 43:1-28, that while Jacob is consigned to destruction and Israel to scorn at the last that a remnant will be saved as the passage opens up. This is inline with what the LORD says in Isaiah 6:11-13. So as a conclusion, this gathering together is inline with Christian eschatology concerning the seventieth 'seven' of Daniel, and the Day of the Lord as the Prophets spoke of it. That day will not be a pleasant one for Israel as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Zephaniah and Malachi have declared. After all the destruction, God will gather a remnant to Him, and as Zechariah says:

ZEC 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Who is the "one they have pierced?"

Will it be until this time after the Day of the Lord before the veil is lifted from your eyes and you will see?

C. Again, this is the Millennial period. The thousand years described in Revelation includes not only Israel, but Syria and Egypt as well: the gentile nations surrounding Israel, being symbolic of the nations apart from God. While man will be made rare in the Wrath of God in the latter half of the seventieth 'seven,' there will be survivors. Ezekiel was witness and a participant to that in 37:1.

No doubt exists in my mind that many will misinterpret the false peace imposed by the iron rule of the fourth beast belonging to the Antichrist as he rises in the first half of the seventieth 'seven' to supremacy and crushes all that come against him as a fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4. I think this is why the second beast, the false prophet, which comes from the "Land" may indeed be rabbinical, that is from the land of Israel. It is he that forces the people to worship the Antichrist. It is he that sets up the abominations in the Tribulation Temple, the idol of himself that actually speaks at the midpoint of the seventieth 'seven.'

D. Yes, this is a Millennial prophecy, occurring after the Day of the Lord.

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Yes because they still yet to be fulfilled in conjunction with the Day of the Lord.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

Oh really? How is that Daniel 9:26 says:

After the sixty-two `sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

I would say this aptly describes Jesus and the following destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

Or how about Isaiah 61:2?

...to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God...

How can the year of the LORD's favor be reconciled to the wrath that is displayed in the Day of the LORD?

No, the concept of a servant sacrificing and a King ruling are two different concepts that are found in the Prophets that cannot be fulfilled at the same time. This is why Jesus reading from Isaiah 61:2 stopped reading at the year of the Lord's favor and proclaimed it fulfilled, but not the day of vengeance. The first was done at the end of the 62 'sevens,' while the second is reserved for a period at the end of the seventieth 'seven.'

This gap in time has a gulf of some 2000 years between it. On either side are two like events: Christ's Advents; and the bridge between them is God's perspective for the Messiah.

 

[TWA Dude]

Perhaps right there is where the Jews got off the track.

I don't even know why I bothered responding to you again. It must concern you greatly that not everyone believes the way you do. Funny, it doesn't concern me at all. It's because of people like you that events like the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust took place and could conceivably happen again.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Part I

I thought you were engaged in an intellectual discussion about Christianity, so I find it odd that you do it from such an uninformed position.

That the issue here: I'm not! I claim to know very little and thus I'm arguing nothing. Please don't let that Timebuilder guy make you think I'm trying to convince anybody of anything.

I'm not asking you to believe what you read, just read it. Then at least you'll know what's being talked about. It can't hurt you.

Perhaps I might read it some day just out of curiosity.

Dude

 

[surplus1]

TWADude

I do not want to "join the dispute" but I do want to commend you for defending your faith. You have stated what you believe clearly and why you believe it. That is all you should have to do before man. We answer to the Almighty, not to other men.

I am a Christian. I don't believe the same things that you do and I do accept the Christ as the Messiah and Savior. Therefore you and I differ, but it is not for me to judge you, that is reserved to God alone. Apparently your attackers feel that it IS their domain to do that.

Feel consolation in the fact that you are not the only one being subjected to the rhetoric of the evangelical fundamentalists. I've only been reading and lurking but got my share too, unsolicited. Here is the quote provided courtesy of Tony C

Christianity contradicts Catholicism, too.

This comes from one of the literally thousand plus "sects" none of which existed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It should be no surprise that they are attacking you.

Ever since Martin Luther started the "Protestant Reformation" in 1517 the Protestant movement has fractured Christianity and successively divided the "Protestant movement" itself into over 1,000 individual denominations, as individuals and groups interpreted the Bible in their own unique ways, and continually formed new sects that they felt were closer to Jesus' intentions for the church.

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way. Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas. Even the King James version, which was the first "protestant directed" english language translation of scripture (puplished 1611) has been altered by them whenever it suited their purpose.

Now it's my turn. Basically, Protestants don't really know what exactly it is they believe. How could they when it changes every time a new "sect" declares itself mentor of the Christian faith? If they did they would not be so divided among themselves and they would not be wasting their time attacking the Western Rite (Roman Catholicism) as well as each other.

All religions have unfortunately been cursed from time to time with despicable humans who have used the Word of God to pursue not only ungodly but inhuman ends, mostly related to money and power. Judaism is no exception as reportedly even as long ago as the time of Jesus, it was necessary for Him to attempt to throw the money changers out of the temple. Catholicism has suffered from infamous and evil Popes who also misued the church and abused its people. The Protestants are likewise no exception as Kings and preachers alike changed the way of God to suit themselves and for personal gain.

It might do us all well to consider that God established no religion. What He did give us was a way of life and the rules we should follow in serving Him. Your faith, my faith, an even the so-called evangelists, accept the Ten Commandments. That much we do have in common. We believe in one God and one set of rules or laws coming from that God that could not be more simple.

When the people of this earth became confused and overburdened by conflicting "interpretations" of God's law, He sent someone to set us straight. Some of us accepted that someone and others did not. Even those that accepted it, do not really follow His teachings for very long, and once more are fighting among themselves over the new group of assorted "interpretations" and their version of Christianity.

The time will come when God, once more, decides to deal with that. That is when we will know if Judaism was wrong (or right) in rejecting the Messiah or if Christianity was right (or wrong) in accepting Jesus as the promised Savior.

I know what your belief is and you know what mine is. So does everyone else on this board. We might all do better in attempting to worship God and live by the rules He set forth than finding fault with each other.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

May God bless you all.

Peace. Shalom.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part I

I claim to know very little and thus I'm arguing nothing.

I was careful not to say "argue" - - I thought you were participating in a discussion. I apologize if I misunderstood or misspoke.

Perhaps I might read it some day just out of curiosity.

Fair enough - - that's all a guy can ask.

 

[Snoopy58]

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way. Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas.

That's not really accurate. There are multiple TRANSLATIONS (not "versions") of the Bible, but they do NOT disagree with each other. To the extent that few people have enough schooling in Greek and Hebrew (and, for a couple of books, Aramaic) to read the original texts, a translation is required. To the extent that no translation will completely capture every nuance of the original language, it's not unreasonable that there are several translations into English, plus several paraphrases, plus translations into almost as many languages as there are in the wrold today. But I'm unaware of any instance where two mainstream translations differ on any significant theological point. (There are a couple of "cult" translations that ARE divergent in some gross ways, but they're rejected by essentially EVERY other denomination as being grossly inaccurate & unfaithful to the original language.)

Sure, there are 1000's of Protestant denominations, but at the root, they pretty well all (okay, most -- 95%+) hold to the same key elements: the authority & inerrancy of the Bible in its original manuscripts, the divinity & humanity of Jesus, His death, burial, and resurection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Trinity. And, in 95% of the cases, they will agree that the areas of agreement are far, far more important than the areas of disagreement. Traditional hymns, or modern worship... style, not substance. Praying the Lord's prayer in unison, or not... style, not substance. Priestly vestments, or plain clothes... whatever works for your congregation. It's the same Bible (the original was inspired, not the translations), and the same beliefs about the same Jesus. You can get wrapped around the axel about the differences, but it's not a productive thing to do, neither for the churches themselves, nor for anyone else.

As in aviation, don't get so wrapped up in the minutia that you get clobberd by the big picture... maintain your situational awareness, and don't get so concerned with the ants you get run over by the elephants. It isn't about KJV vs NIV, nor about contemporary vs traditional worship, nor about how much litergy is in the service. Who was Jesus? Was He a lunatic, was he a liar, or was he Lord? Is the Bible accurate and authoritative? Do you believe your answers to those questions enough that you'll live your life consistent with your answers?

That's what's essential. Which translation, which denomination, and all the other assorted peripheral questions, are peripheral. Don't lose the big picture.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: TWADude

The time will come when God, once more, decides to deal with that. That is when we will know if Judaism was wrong (or right) in rejecting the Messiah or if Christianity was right (or wrong) in accepting Jesus as the promised Savior.

surplus1: welcome aboard. Fortunately almost all here are able to exchange ideas and opinions without showing complete disrespect. Timebuilder just ruins it for the rest.

I disagree with your assertion that eventually G-d will settle the Jesus debate. My personal belief is that there are many ways to serve G-d and that all religions more or less try to make humans into good people. I believe that our actions are far more important than our beliefs to earn salvation. If there's a Heaven then all good people will go there, period. G-d will undoubtedly forgive those who followed the "wrong" Messiah.

Dude

 

[TonyC]

Re: TWADude

(To TWA Dude) Apparently your attackers feel that it IS their domain to do that.

Feel consolation in the fact that you are not the only one being subjected to the rhetoric of the evangelical fundamentalists. I've only been reading and lurking but got my share too, unsolicited. Here is the quote provided courtesy of Tony C

Christianity contradicts Catholicism, too.

This comes from one of the literally thousand plus "sects" none of which existed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. It should be no surprise that they are attacking you.

To set the record straight, we have NOT been attacking TWA Dude. We have exchanged opinions and thoughts, and advocated opinions. I am certain you cannot find a case where I have attacked anyone for a theological opinion. Although I strongly disagree, I have treated him with nothing but respect. The same goes for you.

The quote does not come from a "sect" as you characterize Protestants, or even from a Protestant who you apparently assume I am. I am a Christian, and I am certain you will find that title even in your Catholic Bible. I don't find Catholic or Protestant in my Bible, so I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing either name.

As for the church's history, you will read about it's establishment in Acts 2. It's been around ever since. I believe everything in the Bible, including it's claim of divine inspiration and complete adequacy. No other book, doctrine, or manual is necessary to serve God.

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way.

Yes, I insist that the Bible is God's word, and that is must be taken at its word, and that it cannot be altered, or changed in any way. It cannot be taken away from, nor can it be added unto. It says so!

Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas. Even the King James version, which was the first "protestant directed" english language translation of scripture (puplished 1611) has been altered by them whenever it suited their purpose.

You are correct in your general observation that no single English (or Spanish or German or...) translation is perfect. Many modern translations are plagued by the influence of man-made doctrines, or imperfect methodologies, or just plain honest mistakes. But as we have original texts from which to draw, we can ascertain the majority of the message, and all of the basic doctrine. The only way to completely eliminate all objections to translations is for us all to become conversant in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And not just the languages of today, but those languages used at the time of the writings.

No, the existence of numerous translations does not invalidate the existence of Christ's church today.

Now it's my turn. Basically, Protestants don't really know what exactly it is they believe. How could they when it changes every time a new "sect" declares itself mentor of the Christian faith? If they did they would not be so divided among themselves and they would not be wasting their time attacking the Western Rite (Roman Catholicism) as well as each other.

The same thing could be said about Catholics, and the argument would be equally invalid. The fact that disputes exist among Protestant denominations no more negates the existence of Christ's church than does the fact that there are different "brands" of Catholicism. I couldn't help but notice you took pains to differentiate your brand of Catholicism from all the others. Why? Does the existence of other "Catholic" churches negate the existence of "the Western Rite"? Of course not.

All religions have unfortunately been cursed from time to time with despicable humans who have used the Word of God to pursue not only ungodly but inhuman ends, mostly related to money and power. Judaism is no exception as reportedly even as long ago as the time of Jesus, it was necessary for Him to attempt to throw the money changers out of the temple. Catholicism has suffered from infamous and evil Popes who also misued the church and abused its people. The Protestants are likewise no exception as Kings and preachers alike changed the way of God to suit themselves and for personal gain.

You couldn't be more right on this point. So let's agree not to point to examples of how MEN have messed up in trying to serve God (or themselves) and stick strictly to what God has instructed us through His divine word. We won't compare popes with Martin Luther, we'll stick to Paul and Timothy and the like. I feel very comfortable defending ANYTHING the Bible teaches, ANY day, ANY where.

It might do us all well to consider that God established no religion. What He did give us was a way of life and the rules we should follow in serving Him.

Once again, you are absolutely right. (In fact, I think I said the exact same thing not too long ago. )

Your faith, my faith, an even the so-called evangelists, accept the Ten Commandments. That much we do have in common. We believe in one God and one set of rules or laws coming from that God that could not be more simple.

I don't accept the Ten Commandments as Law, since Christ died to abolish that law. In it's place he left a more perfect law. Mind you, the Old Law was a type of the New Law, and it served as a schoolmaster, or teacher, to prepare mankind for the New Law, so it has many similarities. But it is not binding. We do not offer animal sacrifices, and we do not keep the Sabbath Holy. True, it came from the same God, and the principles carry over, but the Ten Commandments are no longer binding as law.

When the people of this earth became confused and overburdened by conflicting "interpretations" of God's law, He sent someone to set us straight.

You make it sound like God got frustrated when man couldn't get it straight so he sent down Jesus to clarify a few points. On the contrary, God's plan from before the beginning of the earth was to send His Son. Everything has gone, is going, and will continue to go according to His plan.

know what your belief is and you know what mine is. So does everyone else on this board. We might all do better in attempting to worship God and live by the rules He set forth than finding fault with each other.

I suppose we should just disregard the command to evangelize, especially if it causes heated discussions or personal discomfort. Like I said before, we're not finding fault in any individuals, but engaging in thoughtful discussions. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these thoughts with you.

 

[Super 80]

about Bible versions...

Mind you, these are the very same people that insist that the Bible is God's Word, must be taken literally and may not be altered or changed in any way. Ironically, they started out by altering and changing whatever they "interpreted" to be more correct at a given time. Today they have 4 or 5 (perhaps more) different "versions" of the Bible, each professing, of course, to be the more correct and each in disagreement with the other in may key areas. Even the King James version, which was the first "protestant directed" english language translation of scripture (puplished 1611) has been altered by them whenever it suited their purpose.

Just as a point of order, there is nothing really special about the King James Version. As a Bible, it has many merits. It is well done in many respects. However, there are flaws with some of its translations in various parts, and the underlying Greek in the New Testament is weak, and wasn't even available for the book of Revelation: a Latin version was translated instead.

The first English Bible was the Wycliff Version of 1382.
Next was Tyndale in 1534,
Coverdale in 1535,
Great in 1539,
Geneva in 1560,
Bishop's in 1568, and
the King James of 1611 which is based largely on Wycliff's.

In the modern era we have the English Revised Version of 1895,
the American Standard Version of 1901.

The underlying Greek continues to improve with study and archaeology and the modern versions rely on a better Greek from a textual critic point of view than what was available previously.

If you can understand and want to read Shakespearean English, then the King James may be right for you. However, the Apostles wrote in the plain everyday Greek which was a common language for ideas in their time and culture. So I have no problem with my NIV or NASB editions, but I also have a revised KJV that is written in modern English.

 

[Timebuilder]

It must concern you greatly that not everyone believes the way you do.

Actually, it took me some time to care that others were saved also. As a new believer, I was still centered on myself, but God has convicted my heart to reach out according to the Great Commission.

So, while I "care", it is not in the way that you suggest, as if I need others agreeing with me to somehow "shore up" my faith.

Horse hockey.

I care only that you recognize the Messiah, and follow Him to salvation. Everything else is worthless.

Don't worry: that Timebuilder guy has nothing to gain personally whether you trust Christ or not. The loss or gain is yours.

 

[TWA Dude]

I care only that you recognize the Messiah, and follow Him to salvation. Everything else is worthless.

Ah, finally something we agree on! I assure that when the Messiah comes I shall follow. (You walked right into that, tough guy.)

Don't worry: that Timebuilder guy has nothing to gain personally whether you trust Christ or not. The loss or gain is yours.

Perfect. I'll look out for my soul and you can look out for yours. I do believe learning has occured!

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: TWADude

I believe that our actions are far more important than our beliefs to earn salvation.
Dude

Careful now. That statement is very close to getting you branded as a Roman Catholic, i.e., a "contradiction to Christianity". LOL

On a separate vein, I note you moved over to our nemisis CHQ. Hope it goes well for you there.

Best Regards,
Surplus1

 

[Timebuilder]

Perfect. I'll look out for my soul and you can look out for yours. I do believe learning has occured!

Perfect? Only God is perfect. While I try to contstantly learn, there are a couple of things that were imparted to me that have not changed.

1) Christ, the one we know of as Jesus, IS the Messiah. You don't need to wait for anyone else to recognize Him.

2) Christ Himself commands us to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen." Mattew 28:19-20

By that Command, while you are inded responsible for your own response to the Gospel, it is my responsibility to communicate it when opportunities happen, like this one right here.

I believe that our actions are far more important than our beliefs to earn salvation.

3) This is a belief from the Old Covenant, and is no loger a way to salvation. Works are what one does as a consequence of salvation. What does the Bible say? The answer is in Ephesians.

"2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
2:9
not of works, lest anyone should boast."

This means that the "saving" comes from the sacrifice made by Christ in the act depicted in the movie that is the in the title of this thread. There is no system of merits and demerits that cause a balance to tip on your favor when it comes to salvation. Only the act of acceptance of the gift is relevant. How does that act of scarifice relate to Judaism? Let's look.

The ancient Jews attampted to follow Mosaic Law as laid down by God, communicated to Moses by God the Son in His preincarnate form. Yep, it was Jesus, "The Word", who did all of the commmunicating in the Old Testament. Sacrifice was a regular event to gain favor with God. The idea was to demonstrate to God's people that they were unable as humans to fully and perfectly obey that Law.

Later, Christ joined us here in human form so He could give us His new teaching and provide a once-and-for-all sacrifice on our behalf. Just like the Jews might have sacrificed a lamb, Christ was the perfect Lamb of God to take on all of our sins for us. In John 1 we find " 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.' 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."

But what about the Law, and the Jewish scripture of the Old Testament? It's in Matthew 5:17-

"17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

What has He fulfilled? All of the requirements by which He should be identified as the Messiah.

Has learning occurred? I certanly hope so.

 

[surplus1]

Re: about Bible versions...

Thanks for the reply. You have made my point.

For those who want to take the Bible "literally", and that's the mantra of the "Born Again Christians", the existence of all these "versions" flies in the face of their position. They focus on the trivia to justify a "war among Christians" over who is right and who is wrong. In the process, the true meaning of Christianity is lost in the shuffle while they "thump" around quoting chapter and verse for every and anything, from books that often disagree with each other and "translations" tailored to support their own beliefs. Candidly, it is little more than a glorified (pun intended) side show. These folks are what I call "TV Christians". The channel should be switched and the tents folded.

There are several Protestant denominations that do not engage in this sort of thing. Among them Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and the real Baptists. There is one notable Evangelist, Billy Graham, who also does not do that.

All Christians believe in One God. All Christians accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. However, there are some Christian denominations that do not believe that the Christ was actually God, made man. Thus they do not believe in the true divinity of Jesus. Others do not really believe in the Trinity, they think it is "figurative". Few believe in the "virgin birth". Many Protestants and virtually all of the "thumpers" believe that Catholics are not Christians.

You, for example, have listed a variety of english translations of the Bible, yet one of the most significant is conspicuously absent from your list. It is the Douai-Reims version or the "Catholic Bible".

As a student of the Bible, which you seem to be, I am sure you know that the Douai-Reims version was translated from the Vulgate and not from Hebrew and Greek. Many claim that this makes the KJV (AV) more accurate. I notice however that you do list the Wycliff version, which history tells us was one of the principle references used in compiling the KJV. I find that interesting because the Wycliff versions was also translated from the Vulgate (Latin).

I agree that there are "flaws" with some of the translations in various parts of the KJV. Perhaps as you say they stem from "weakness" in the underlying Greek of the New Testament but that is only part of the story.

In my opinion, there are other reasons that have little to do with the problems of language, and that applies to all of the "versions" you listed. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

I am not implying that the Douai-Reims version is flawless. The truth is it contaned far to many of the original Latin and Greek words due to the over-anxiety for accuracy on the part of the translators who could not be certain of the accuracy of the English equivalents and therefor used the original term. As a result, while it retained its accuracy, it was extremely difficult to read.

The New Testament of the Douay was published in 1582, but due to lack of money the completed Old Testament did not come out until 1609 when the complete work was published as a whole. It predates the KJV.

Just as with the other english language versions of the Bible, the Catholic version has also had different editions. The last being published in Dublin in 1803.

There are some Bibles in use today by Catholics in England and Ireland that are called "Douay" but really aren't. They are Challonder's editions (3) which differ not only from the original but from each other. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used.

The point of all this is really simple. In the English language alone, there are many versions of the Bible all of which differ substantially from each other, some in very significant areas. Therefore, we cannot take this book "literally" in any of its versions. To do so and then declare others who do not to be erroneous unbelievers is folly.

The substance of Christianity is not dependent upon minutiae and we waste time by dwelling on it. Salvation comes only from the Father. If we can accept and live by the tenets of the two great Commandments (stated in my previous post) salvation is probable. It is not enough to merely believe in Jesus. One must also live by the Word. The rest of the Bilble is a history book that tells the story and refers to the actors. Ony one of those "actors" is of import and that is God. If you are a true Christian, then the Trinity is not "figurative" it is real. Therfore, Jesus is God and so is the Holy Spirit. One God, three persons.
It is not possible for humans to understand that. You either believe it or you don't. That is why we call it Faith.

Just as a point of order, there is nothing really special about the King James Version. As a Bible, it has many merits. It is well done in many respects. However, there are flaws with some of its translations in various parts, and the underlying Greek in the New Testament is weak, and wasn't even available for the book of Revelation: a Latin version was translated instead.

The first English Bible was the Wycliff Version of 1382.
Next was Tyndale in 1534,
Coverdale in 1535,
Great in 1539,
Geneva in 1560,
Bishop's in 1568, and
the King James of 1611 which is based largely on Wycliff's.

In the modern era we have the English Revised Version of 1895,
the American Standard Version of 1901.

The underlying Greek continues to improve with study and archaeology and the modern versions rely on a better Greek from a textual critic point of view than what was available previously.

If you can understand and want to read Shakespearean English, then the King James may be right for you. However, the Apostles wrote in the plain everyday Greek which was a common language for ideas in their time and culture. So I have no problem with my NIV or NASB editions, but I also have a revised KJV that is written in modern English.

 

[Timebuilder]

For those who want to take the Bible "literally", and that's the mantra of the "Born Again Christians", the existence of all these "versions" flies in the face of their position. They focus on the trivia to justify a "war among Christians" over who is right and who is wrong. In the process, the true meaning of Christianity is lost in the shuffle while they "thump" around quoting chapter and verse for every and and anything, from books that often disagree with each other and "translations" tailored to support their own beliefs. Candidly, it is little more than a glorified (pun intended) side show. These folks are what I call "TV Christians". The channel should be switched and the tents folded.

Man, that's a lot of falsehood. Let's look at it piece by piece.

For those who want to take the Bible "literally", and that's the mantra of the "Born Again Christians", the existence of all these "versions" flies in the face of their position.

There is no such "position." The guiding idea when reading scripture, no matter the version, is this: "if the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense." There is no "mantra." A "mantra" is a word or phrase repeated dozens or hundreds of times to engage a hypnogogic state. I taught TM and mind work for almost ten years, so I have just a little background. Here is a relevant Bible passage dealing with "mantras", whether they be a single two syllable word like "au-ohm" or "hail Mary full of grace...." :

Matthew 6:7 "And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words."

the existence of all these "versions" flies in the face of their position.

Not true. There are only many translations. The value of one translation over another is whether it comes closest to the meaning of the original writing. Since we are looking for what God said, as opposed to what a human paraphrased or supposed was intended to be said, we want to choose the best translation available. Currently, Bible scholars favor the New King James text for accureacy of translation and a low incidence of supposition. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, so a translation from the Greek is seen as best. Certianly, comparison is good to cross check for translation accuracy.

They focus on the trivia to justify a "war among Christians" over who is right and who is wrong.

Negative. Readback incorrect.

There is no such war among Christians. The "Christian" is defined by a belief and obediance, the willingness to struggle in our lives to follow Christ. The Bible is very specific about what that means, not in the legalistic sense, but in the manner of giving examples of those who followed Him, and the example of the life He led Himself.

Christ determines what is right and wrong, and we have that right in His Word. There is no room for disagreement in the face of His clear teachings.

In the process, the true meaning of Christianity is lost in the shuffle while they "thump" around quoting chapter and verse for every and and anything, from books that often disagree with each other and "translations" tailored to support their own beliefs.

Sorry. Even with the several available translations, there is no translation that is "tailored" to anyone's belief. There are no books that "disagree with each other." This idea comes from a lack of understanding of the Bible, not a fault with the Word.

Candidly, it is little more than a glorified (pun intended) side show. These folks are what I call "TV Christians". The channel should be switched and the tents folded.

If you are talking about televangelists who perform on-stage "healings" and raise money for a glamorous lifestyle, then we agree on this point. This point has nothing to do with the first part of your paragraph, though.

There are several Protestant denominations that do not engage in this sort of thing. Among them Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and the real Baptists. There is one notable Evangelist, Billy Graham, who also does not do that.

What is the "that" to which you refer? A teching of the Bible, or an emphasis on the saving power of Christ? Yes, there are many who understate the importance of the finished work on the cross. Woe to them.

there are some Christian denominations that do not believe that the Christ was actually God, made man. Thus they do not believe in the true divinity of Jesus. Others do not really believe in the Trinity, they think it is "figurative". Few believe in the "virgin birth". Many Protestants and virtually all of the "thumpers" believe that Catholics are not Christians.

Anyone can call themselves a Christian, or a "Christian denomination." This does not make it so, according to the standard of the Bible, since 2Timothy 3:16-17 makes clear the origin of scripture.

So, while a group can say they are Christians, but not accept that Christ was actually God, that does not mean they are Christian in reality. Instead, it means that they are misled.

It is not enough to merely believe in Jesus. One must also live by the Word.

Here you have two distinct ideas. The first, trusting Jesus as personal savior, is the only requirement for salvation. The second idea, living by the Word, is the basis for the life of the Christian, what he or she does AFTER the acceptance of the free gift of salvation, by the sacrifice made on the cross for us. This is from James:

'14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'

So, for the Christian, faith and works do go hand in hand, but works without faith has no salvation, and faith without works does not demonstrate the love of Christ to others. Faith IS the requirement in this equation, though : in John-
" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'

Hmm. "No one comes to the Father except through me." That sounds pretty darned specific.

Salvation comes only from the Father.

This happens only through Christ, because He took on our sin.

And remember, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

That's a VERY important point.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: about Bible versions...

Thanks for the reply. You have made my point.

For those who want to take the Bible "literally", and that's the mantra of the "Born Again Christians", the existence of all these "versions" flies in the face of their position.

So, multiple versions of the Bible is problematic when one claims to believe the Bible literally, but when one does NOT claim to believe the Bible literally, multiple versions is NOT problematic. And that's why it's OK to have several versions of the Catholic Bible, but not a King James, New American Standard, Revised Standard, and New International Version? Am I reading you right on that point? Because if I am, I take it you don't put much weight in the Bible at all, and I'm inclined to conclude that you put the weight in the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible instead. Why bother reading the Bible if the priest is gonna tell ya what it says?

All Christians believe in One God. All Christians accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. However, there are some Christian denominations that do not believe that the Christ was actually God, made man. Thus they do not believe in the true divinity of Jesus. Others do not really believe in the Trinity, they think it is "figurative". Few believe in the "virgin birth". Many Protestants and virtually all of the "thumpers" believe that Catholics are not Christians.

How do you go about determining which points of agreement and which points of disagreement are important, or relevant? Do you arrive at these conclusions after a thoughtful study of the Bible, or do you accept what the priest says and not bother to study? For example, how did you come to a knowledge that belief in a Trinity is essential?

I can tell you how I did - - I've studied the Bible. In fact, I've studied from several translations. No help from a priest, just God's word.

As a student of the Bible, which you seem to be, I am sure you know that the Douai-Reims version was translated from the Vulgate and not from Hebrew and Greek. Many claim that this makes the KJV (AV) more accurate.

What can possibly be more accurate than translating from the original language? Super 80 has already pointed out a flaw of the KJV - - that Revelation was translated from Latin because the original texts were unavailable at the time. That flaw has since been remedied, and the objection answered.

In my opinion, there are other reasons that have little to do with the problems of language, and that applies to all of the "versions" you listed. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

I am not implying that the Douai-Reims version is flawless. The truth is it contaned far to many of the original Latin and Greek words due to the over-anxiety for accuracy on the part of the translators who could not be certain of the accuracy of the English equivalents and therefor used the original term. As a result, while it retained its accuracy, it was extremely difficult to read.

I'm sure the Catholic versions suffered none of the human tendancies to reflect doctrine. After all, those translators were not human, right?

"original Latin"?!?!?! give us a break. There is no such thing.

The substance of Christianity is not dependent upon minutiae and we waste time by dwelling on it. Salvation comes only from the Father. If we can accept and live by the tenets of the two great Commandments (stated in my previous post) salvation is probable. It is not enough to merely believe in Jesus. One must also live by the Word. The rest of the Bilble is a history book that tells the story and refers to the actors. Ony one of those "actors" is of import and that is God. If you are a true Christian, then the Trinity is not "figurative" it is real. Therfore, Jesus is God and so is the Holy Spirit. One God, three persons.
It is not possible for humans to understand that. You either believe it or you don't. That is why we call it Faith.

But wait - - isn't the belief in One God, three persons another one of those types of things you claim Protestants start wars about? What makes it right for you to cling to a tenant of faith, and insist it is essential, but deny that same right to what you call Protestants? It sounds to me a whole lot like the pot calling the kettle...

 

[TWA Dude]

Note to readers capable of reason: the following is me having fun at the expense of a poster who can read but apparently cannot comprehend. I mean no disrespect to anybody else.

3) This is a belief from the Old Covenant, and is no loger a way to salvation. Works are what one does as a consequence of salvation. What does the Bible say? The answer is in Ephesians.

Hello!? Anybody home? I'm not a Christian so you quoting the Christian Bible means nothing to me.

Later, Christ joined us here in human form so He could give us His new teaching and provide a once-and-for-all sacrifice on our behalf. Just like the Jews might have sacrificed a lamb, Christ was the perfect Lamb of God to take on all of our sins for us.

I wouldn't be proud of this kind of thing. In the Bible we are told how much G-d hates those who practice human-sacrifice, such as the Amalek tribe. The Hebrews were ordered to smite them.

Has learning occurred? I certanly hope so.

Unfortunately it hasn't. If you choose you may keep on claiming how right you are and how wrong I am but it won't work. Perhaps you should put a gun to my head and see if I'm willing to die for my beliefs. You're just the type who'd do that kind of thing.

 

[Publishers]

Versions

OK I assume that we will agree that the Bible as we know it was a collection of writings that were codified when I beleive (too lazy to look it up) Constantine wanted to make a number for friends of his and had a group come up with what should be in it. He was under a time deadline and as you know, it was not a matter of running to Kinko's and running off a few hundred.

As each one was hand done, literally no two were the exact same. One of the things that I always disliked was the numbering of verses and the over analysis of each word.

Most of the important points stand out like a Stop sign in snow.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hello!? Anybody home? I'm not a Christian so you quoting the Christian Bible means nothing to me.

Once again, you are proceeding from a false premise.

The necessary premise of your statement is that the Bible applies only to those who believe it to be true. This is a subjective view, where the truth of the idea depends on the situation, in this case, the Bible speaking only to the believer.

This simply is not true. The Bible declares that it is objective truth, for all people, and for all time. That's why Christ, the Messiah, exhorts His followers to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

So it does not have to "mean anything to you" in order to APPLY to you, or anyone else who speaks and breathes.

I wouldn't be proud of this kind of thing. In the Bible we are told how much G-d hates those who practice human-sacrifice, such as the Amalek tribe. The Hebrews were ordered to smite them.

Another thing that sounds like something Caiaphas might have said. Uninformed, stiffnecked, and utterly wrong. This is why Christ came, fulfilling all of the Prophets, and imparting the grace of God. He was unhappy with the course taken by His chosen people, and He came to expand and interpret a New Covenant for them and all others, where the lack of ability to adhere to The Law was supplanted by a sacrifice made by God Himself, in order to make us acceptable to Him. .

If you choose you may keep on claiming how right you are and how wrong I am but it won't work. Perhaps you should put a gun to my head and see if I'm willing to die for my beliefs. You're just the type who'd do that kind of thing.

So, now you are unable to answer the assertions of the Bible, and now resort to an absurd suggestion. Tell me, what good might it do for me to put a gun to your head, and how would Christ be served by doing so? Just like a liberal, you must change the point of argument and hold that up as a reason for your position. This called "dodging the issue."

I am not claiming AT ALL that "I" am right. I am communicating that GOD is right. Apparently, it suits you to ignore this nuance. In fact, it is the only way you can try to attack the message, by attacking the messenger.

Your only hope is that I might be wrong in being a believer. That's not much to go on, my friend.

 

[TWA Dude]

Note to readers capable of reason: the following is me having fun at the expense of a poster who can read but apparently cannot comprehend. I mean no disrespect to anybody else.

This simply is not true. The Bible declares that it is objective truth, for all people, and for all time.

I'm quite sure Muslims feel the same way about the Koran. Sorry big guy, but you can parade all the bibles you like procaiming their "truths" but it won't affect me.

So it does not have to "mean anything to you" in order to APPLY to you, or anyone else who speaks and breathes.

I'll let G-d be the judge of that; not you.

Tell me, what good might it do for me to put a gun to your head...

Nothing, of course. I was just pointing out the obvious similarity between the way you think and the way the Inquisitors of Spain thought: "I'm right and you're wrong".

Just like a liberal, you must change the point of argument and hold that up as a reason for your position. This called "dodging the issue."

Oh, now that's a gem. YOU bring up politics in a religious discussion and you accuse ME of issue-dodging?

The real funny part is that you don't even understand that I'm not arguing with you. I haven't once told you that your belief is wrong. I feel no need to wrap my Bible around myself and cry that it speaks the Truth even to the non-believers. I feel secure in my beliefs and I don't need to try to prove they're right. Furthermore my religion doesn't order me to do so.

I am not claiming AT ALL that "I" am right. I am communicating that GOD is right. Apparently, it suits you to ignore this nuance.

The "nuance" that YOU'RE ignoring is that I don't recognize the Christian Bible as G-d's word.

Your only hope is that I might be wrong in being a believer. That's not much to go on, my friend.

Your arrogance knows no bounds. As I wrote before; you worry about your soul and I'll worry about mine.

 

[mar]

The good fight

Dude--Dukin' it out with TB seems to be a rite of passage around here.

We've all been there.

He will always have the last word.

I'm not discouraging you. Go ahead and fight the good fight. I just wanted to say, 'you're not alone,' if that means anything from an atheist.

Holy cow, TB...

 

[Herman Bloom]

Timbuilder IS the worst kind of arrogant fundamentalist. Glad to see others recognizing this fact. I'll bet he's just a joy to be around.

 

[Timebuilder]

Ooh!

Another attempt at a personal attack, with no substance.

You must work for Howard Dean.

 

[Herman Bloom]

Please stop it timebuilder. You're hurting me.

Doesn't change the fact that you are a pr**ck.

Oh sorry that one had "no substance" either did it.

Woops.

 

[bart]

Hey Herman, your mother is calling you.

Why not go find a board where they appreciate snot-nosed punks like yourself?

 

[Timebuilder]

Oh sorry that one had "no substance" either did it.

Nope.