Paranoid Christianity

[bbyrd009]

So you pretty much don't take anything in the Bible literally then. I think there will be a lot that you and I disagree about, and since you can't take the Bible literally, there is really no platform to stand on in any discussion.

you might contemplate the many vv you have no probs not taking literally now, you never "died daily" once in your life, etc.
"Take the Bible literally" is code, imo, and i guess i don't even need to say for what

 

[Frank Lee]

2 Corinthians 11:3 KJVS
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Thank God for the simplicity of the plain gospel. I Thank God daily that He saved me outside the walls of denominational churches. Thank God I knew zilch about Him.

Watchman Nee was a brilliant biblical scholar but lamented that the simple fishermen in very remote China seemed to know the savior Jesus much better than he.

I've had severely deniminationalized people attack me visciously when I told them that God told me this or that. They were so brainwashed that God has stopped doing these miracles, etc way back after he apostles died out. They seemed afraid of me just because I tried to share some good news based on the gospel.

One PHD (post hole digger when Jesus us absent) had a pamphlet with his intelligent looking photo on the front. The pamphlet stated that without a doubt all life has sprung from (drum roll here)... SEAWEED!

Keep it simple and tell it like it is and push aside the wackos.

 

[bbyrd009]

c'mon Frank, i've given you what, 20 premises you might gleefully attack, but you pick that one? go with what you know bro
"
...What precisely Jannes and Jambres personified isn't clear beyond their obvious failure to stick to the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but Paul's lack of hesitation to use this legend as fortification of his earlier assertions, also demonstrates his belief that "all writing" (πασα γραφη, pasa graphe) is God-breathed and profitable for teaching (2 Timothy 3:16).

Paul's view is obviously contrary to the ludicrous position of certain religious folk of the latter days, who maintain that solely our modern Bible is God-breathed. Our modern Bible didn't even exist when Paul wrote this, in the 60's in Rome. At that time the Hebrew canon was not agreed upon and the gospels and Revelation didn't exist yet (as they were written in the immediate post-Templar period of 70 to 100 AD).

Of course Paul acknowledged a distinction between so-called Holy Scriptures and the rest of literature, but people who ponder the term "God-breathed" often appear to forget what an amazing thing written language is. Writing is the beginning of information technology, and it changed everything for mankind..." The amazing name Jambres: meaning and etymology

 

[bbyrd009]

"
The verb מרר (marar I), means to be bitter (Job 27:2, Ruth 1:20). It should be noted with some stress, however, that for the Hebrew audience the idea of bitterness has as much to do with grief as with strength. A dish with a bitter taste is said to have a "strong" taste.

HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament reports that the Ugaritic, Arabic and Aramaic cognates of this root mean to bless, strengthen or commend. And since these languages are most often very similar to Hebrew, any Hebrew audience would surely be aware of this secondary meaning. HAW lists four texts in which this verb may be more appropriately be translated with strength/strengthen than with bitterness/being bitter: Exodus 1:14, Judges 18:25, Ecclesiastes 7:26 and Ezekiel 3:14.

Although the verb occurs a mere fifteen times in the Bible, it comes with no less than twelve derivatives, all pretty much meaning the same thing:.." ibid

man, i love this guy

Myrrh, the oil of joy and weddings nights

 

[junobet]

It is sad that politics is more attractive to many Christians than science. Politics is rooted in untested opinion (superstition)..........scientific opinion, on the other hand, is based on patterns of experience (theory).

Well, ideally politics are based on scientifically proven facts (that one may of course draw differing conclusions from concerning the actions that are required). Alas, more often than not politicians will put self-interest before the common good and will even go as far as to completely deny facts. And these selfish politicians are rather good at blinding even Christians to that.

 

[Grams]

[[[[[[[[ forrestcupp said !
But I don't know the context of what Grams was meaning when he said things
have changed.]]]]]]]]]]]]]]


"I thought if I pulled this from our church it will explain , better then I would I do mix things up.

Yes I am GrandMa I am 82, and live with my son and his wife, and there 8 children.................. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

'Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the world of truth."(2 Tim. 2.15)

· Have you ever wondered why today's Christians can eat pork even though in the Old Testament men were forbidden to do so?

· Or, do you know people (or, perhaps yourself) who shun Christianity because Christians can't seem to agree on anything?

· And what about all those contractions in the Bible?



These are all valid concerns, but when a person begins to "rightly divide" the word of truth, as admonished by Paul to Timothy, these seeming difficulties and disputations are resolved. To "rightly divide" means that God has dealt with mankind at different times with different expectations from him. Although it is profitable for us to read the entire Bible (2Tim.3:16), it is imperative that we understand which part of the Bible is intended primarily for us in this time of Grace. The following excerpt from the book "Things That Differ" by C.R. Stam explains:

"If I should step inside a modern United States Post Office all would doubtless seem very confusing to me. But it would be a mistake to suggest piling all the mail neatly into one corner and handing it out promiscuously to all comers as some would do with the Bible. The postal employees must rightly divide the mail so that each person receives what is addressed to him. What seems like confusion to the novice is really a simplification of the work to be done in getting each person's private mail
to him.

It is granted that in the Bible even that which was addressed to those of other dispensations is given to us for our learning and profit, but we must not confuse this with our own private mail or make the mistake of carrying out instructions meant particularly for others.

While I am reading mail addressed personally to me, a friend may hand me, for my interest or information, mail addressed to him. His mail and mine may all prove informative and profitable, but I must still be careful not to confuse the two, expecting to receive things promised to him or carrying out instructions addressed to him.

Thus, all the Bible is for us, but it is not all addressed to us or written about us, and if we would really understand and enjoy it; if we would really know how to use it effectively in service for Christ, we must be careful always to note who is addressing whom, about what and when and why" (p.20).



In every dispensation, righteousness before God has always been achieved by believing what God has said and acting upon it. For example, the law required every male child to be circumcised, but that is not God's requirement today.

The LAW says: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14.

But GRACE says: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands...Col. 2:10,11.



There were also many dietary laws, and one in particular many people remember is the prohibition not to eat pork. But under the dispensation of Grace, we are not under those prohibitions.

The LAW says: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. Deut. 14:8

But GRACE says: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1Tim: 4:4



And the Sabbath day. In our day of grace, one day is like unto another. All are to be lived to the glory of God.

The Law says: Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...Ex. 20:8,10.

But GRACE says: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days... Col.2:16,17


And because of the finished work of Jesus Christ at the Cross, we are no longer under any provision of the law for the forgiveness of sin.

The Law says: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. (Matt. 6:12) For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matt. 6:14,15.

But GRACE says: And ye be kind one to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. Eph. 4.32.


The ultimate example of the difference between law and grace is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The law required annual blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, which we now understand were but a foreshadow of the ultimate sacrifice Christ Jesus would make for the complete payment for all of our sins.

The Law says: The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifiethto the purifying of the flesh. Heb. 9:13

But GRACE says: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb. 9:12


For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8,9)


Where the dispensation of the law was entrusted to Moses (John 1:17), the dispensation of the grace of God was entrusted to Paul. Why is understanding this so important? Because it is by this message of grace, dispensed by Paul, that God will judge us. Remember, righteousness comes by believing what God says (i.e., what God is saying to us in this age of Grace) and acting on it. That is what faith is: believing God; trusting Him and His Word. Paul says in Romans 2:16:

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to MY Gospel.


Paul tells us that he was appointed by God to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles,..." (Ro. 11:13) and that his message was revealed to him directly by Jesus Christ:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached to of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal.1:11,12)


How then does Paul's gospel differ? Pastor Thomas Brusha, in his booklet "Dictionary of the Gospel" gives a clear explanation:

God promised in the Old Testament to set up a Kingdom here on earth through the nation Israel, in which Christ would reign as King! Christ was here; and the good news proclaimed was that the Kingdom was at hand. In Matthew 10:7 we find this to be the same gospel the Twelve Apostles were sent to preach. Also, in Matthew 10:5,6 we learn that this gospel was good news for the Nation of Israel. It is amazing, yet true, that after the Twelve Apostles had been preaching this gospel now, for some time, they still did not know about Christ's purpose to go to the Cross and die for their sins. We know this is true because when Christ began later to tell his Apostles that he was going to Jerusalem to die, they didn't believe him, nor did they understand what he was talking about. The reason being, they were preaching the good news about the Kingdom. They expected Christ to establish Israel's Kingdom and to take the throne as their King - see Matthew 16:21,22; Luke 18:31-34: and Luke 19:11.


How then, could the twelve Apostles have preached the same gospel the Apostle Paul later preached, when they did not know or understand anything about the Cross at that time? Paul preached :

"THE CROSS" and "CHRIST CRUCIFIED (1 Corinthians 1:18,23)

The point is this. The gospel that the Twelve Apostles preached during the earthly ministry of Christ is not the same gospel the Apostle Paul was sent to preach later. According to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 the gospel Paul preached was the GOOD NEWS of the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ FOR OUR SINS.

Paul tells us in Galatians 1:11,12 where his gospel originated. It was after the resurrection and ascension that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to the Apostle Paul all that was accomplished on the Cross. In acts 20:24 Paul calls this message "THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD." In Galatians 2:1,2 we see that this gospel is intended for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; and in Galatians 2:6-10 we find that the Twelve Apostles learned of this gospel from Paul.

In this present age of "GRACE", God has set Israel as a nation aside, and the Kingdom promised to them has been postponed until a future time. Therefore the "GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM" is NOT God's message of good news for today, but rather the good news of how the Cross saves Sinners of all nationalities. This is God's message for today! (pp6-8).


The following books are recommended:

"Dictionary of the Gospel" by Thomas Bruscha
"Things That Differ" by C. R. Stam
"The Dispensations" by Hazel I. Brown

 

[bbyrd009]

and push aside the wackos.

so, perhaps you'd like a redo now?

 

[forrestcupp]

@Grams that was a great post. And I totally agree. My only reservation with all of that is that some people take it so far as to throw the Old Testament out, and I think that's a travesty. We're no longer under the Jewish OT law, but there are still a lot of aspects about the OT that are very beneficial to us today. I've heard it described that the OT is a room in the dark, and the NT flips the light switch on. God, Himself, never changed. But the way we can access and interact with Him has changed. We now don't have to go through the law to access Him because of the blood of Jesus.

But there are some great things about the OT, like all of the types and shadows of Jesus, the wisdom, the heart of relationships with God from the stories and Psalms, and certain of the prophecies that are not law-based, and they still pertain to us today. You can learn a lot about the nature and heart of God through the OT that transcends the law that doesn't carry forward into the new covenant. Plus it's necessary to remember that we are not exempt from the law at all. It's just that we now follow the law written on our hearts, rather than the Jewish law.

 

[bbyrd009]

"The Law says: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
um no, that's Grace wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

Myrrh, the oil of joy and weddings nights

"
...Does the Law forbid you to actually get off your cushion and investigate the matter? "Ah!" the Pharisees say, "Check for yourself and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee!"

No doubt this blunder of the Pharisees would have caused a roar of laughter in John's original audience. These self-proclaimed experts of the Law think that they can gauge Jesus from afar while they can't even fathom Nicodemus who sits right next to them. They're an obtuse bunch of vociferous louts who don't even remember that the prophet Jonah came from Gath-hepher, five kilometers north of Nazareth in lower Galilee (2 Kings 14:25). The Pharisees are caught with their pants down. They're not interested in the Law for theological reasons but for demagogical reasons (John 11:48; at this time, two high-ranking members of their own club pronounce them ignorant; Caiaphas says, "You know nothing at all"; John 11:49. And at least one other Council member was a disciple of Christ, namely Joseph of Arimathea; Mark 15:43).

The final time that Nicodemus shows up in John's gospel is at the burial of Jesus (John 19:39). We learn that Joseph of Arimathea, who retrieves the Body of Christ from Pontius Pilate, is still very much a fearful undercover disciple. Nicodemus, on the other hand, has by now figured out that he has absolutely nothing to fear, and brings a hundred litra of myrrh-and-aloe. And to put that into perspective: a few chapters earlier, Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, had used one litra of the same oil to anoint Jesus' feet (which, whether the modern reader likes it or not, is a perfectly proper and open allusion to the most honorable member of a bridegroom's anatomy). In the previous chapter, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, and John makes sure that the reader relates Mary's act to Jesus' act (12:1, 12:9). Mary's oil filled the whole house with a pleasant scent (12:3) but Lazarus' corpse was producing the stink of death (11:39). John also makes sure that the reader knows that Martha believed in the resurrection (11:24), and makes it very unlikely that Mary didn't (11:45, 12:11).

The oil that Mary used was so costly that spending a litre of it had irritated Judas Iscariot. Mary's litre represented 300 dinari, which was a common man's annual wage. Nicodemus brings one hundred times as much; that's one hundred years of labor worth of myrrh oil. Moving that kind of oil must have involved every merchant in town. There's no way that Nicodemus could have amassed that much oil covertly, or even keep its purpose secret. Surely the whole town knew about it. But why the oil?

Nicodemus and the myrrh oil
The amazing name Nicodemus: meaning and etymology

 

[bbyrd009]

"
When Judas complaints about Mary's oil, Jesus tells him, "Let Mary be, that she may keep it for the day of My burial" (John 12:7, Matthew 26:12, Mark 14:8), and a large majority of modern commentators will state that Mary "prepared" Jesus' Body for embalming. That is entirely incorrect..." ibid

no kidding; if church ppl believe it, it is almost surely wrong

 

[bbyrd009]

So you pretty much don't take anything in the Bible literally then.

and fwiw this is not really true, and i'm sure we could agree on what is literal easily enough. i take "Jesus wept" literally, etc.

but a point i wanted to make here is that the Bible consists of mostly dialectic passages that a logical thinker will not be able to interpret correctly without running afoul of other Scripture, as we can witness broadly occurring, @ the practice of "duelling Scriptures"

 

[forrestcupp]

All right @bbyrd009

I have a thought for you. You've been pushing this Nehushtan bull hockey a lot. In your opinion, Nehushtan equates to Jesus (I think). You talk about the one time in the entire Bible that Nehushtan is mentioned, which is when Hezekiah destroyed it so people would stop worshiping the bronze idol in the image of a serpent. And because of what Jesus said in John 3:14 (I assume), you say that Jesus equals Nehushtan. But Jesus never said He was Nehushtan. All He did was compare His crucifixion to the event of Moses lifting up the serpent. It was a comparison in that both were lifted up, and people are saved as a result. He was using a very familiar story to prove a point. It was a real-life parable. Like when He said the Kingdom of God is like a guy who found a pearl of great value, He isn't saying the Kingdom equals a pearl. You of all people should know when something in the Bible isn't literal.

Anyway, you claim we should follow Christ, but that it's wrong to be worshippers of Jesus because that equates to worshipping Nehushtan, which Hezekiah destroyed in the reformation. So why is it that Romans 10:9 specifically says that we have to confess that Jesus is Lord? It doesn't use the word "Christ," it specifically says that Jesus is Lord. That means that in order to be saved, we have to submit to Jesus.

 

[aspen]

Ha

 

[bbyrd009]

You've been pushing this Nehushtan bull hockey a lot.

it's prolly just better to discuss this with someone else i guess,
have a nice evening

 

[forrestcupp]

it's prolly just better to discuss this with someone else i guess,
have a nice evening

Forget I said "bull hockey." I'm sorry I offended you. Can you address the rest of what I said? I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

 

[bbyrd009]

Forget I said "bull hockey." I'm sorry I offended you. Can you address the rest of what I said? I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

a lot of that would depend upon how one defines "worship," which is usually understood to be a ritual thing now. So, Jesus "worship" may not be a bad place to start, but it is not the best spot to be in after a certain point, otherwise one might more easily accept that "Jesus already died for my sins, therefore i do not need to confess them (much less rebound from them)," or the many other, related forms of rebound denial that we witness in the Body today, even including symptom treatment (palliative, or "Doctor" care; the caduceus on the lapel) over cause removal (rebound/repentance) in our "health care."

Doctor Worship is a road sign in this as well, this would equate to a Christian who should be in a spiritually mature state still worshipping Jesus; the "Two Greeks who came to worship Jesus" (and He "hid from them") is also a pointer to this concept

imo

 

[forrestcupp]

a lot of that would depend upon how one defines "worship," which is usually understood to be a ritual thing now. So, Jesus "worship" may not be a bad place to start, but it is not the best spot to be in after a certain point, otherwise one might more easily accept that "Jesus already died for my sins, therefore i do not need to confess them (much less rebound from them)," or the many other, related forms of rebound denial that we witness in the Body today, even including symptom treatment (palliative, or "Doctor" care; the caduceus on the lapel) over cause removal (rebound/repentance) in our "health care."

Doctor Worship is a road sign in this as well, this would equate to a Christian who should be in a spiritually mature state still worshipping Jesus; the "Two Greeks" who came to "worship Jesus" (and He "hid from them") is also a pointer to this concept

imo

So are you saying that a Christ follower doesn't need to still confess sins, or are you saying it's wrong to think you don't need to continue to confess your sins? And question #2, do you believe that "Jesus follower" and "Christ follower" are the same thing? If not, please explain...

 

[bbyrd009]

So are you saying that a Christ follower doesn't need to still confess sins, or are you saying it's wrong to think you don't need to continue to confess your sins?

but it is not the best spot to be in after a certain point, otherwise

i'm not sure how i could make that any clearer, sorry.

Many ppl seem to go to extreme lengths to avoid admitting any wrongs one to another, period, right; and "accepting Jesus" is then a way to avoid confessing one to another, by either "confessing sin to God," which is not Quotable from Scripture, anywhere, or the surely much more damaging "Catholic confession + penance," an entirely pagan concept

do you believe that "Jesus follower" and "Christ follower" are the same thing?

well, if they're actually following i guess the semantics won't matter, and if they're worshipping the causes will not be rebounded from, and the semantics won't save them.

"Christ died for your sins" can either be accepted as a sacrifice that gives every believer a get out of jail free card,
or a path to following, and being a Living Sacrifice; and the dialectic language in the Bible will allow one to interpret what they desire.
a reader is manipulated without being aware of it, invited to accept a certain perspective in a passage, and a few other devices i guess, i'm hardly proficient in that yet, sorry

imo

 

[truthquest]

...or the many other, related forms of rebound denial that we witness in the Body today, even including symptom treatment (palliative, or "Doctor" care; the caduceus on the lapel) over cause removal (rebound/repentance) in our "health care."

Doctor Worship is a road sign in this as well, this would equate to a Christian who should be in a spiritually mature state still worshipping Jesus; the "Two Greeks who came to worship Jesus" (and He "hid from them") is also a pointer to this concept

What do you think about parents who refuse medical care for their children who have a serious illness that results in the death of the child and that could have been prevented?