Bible question. Where to research?

sin and transgress against god. If the evil is not within them then where is it KP? If it is not evil that is causing them to sin on such a continual basis then what is it. Or are you rejecting the Christian belief that evil is present and holds sway in the world today?
Christians beleive that prostitution is a sin. Until you accept Jesus you are not purged of your sin(s).Sin is evil.It is Satan's sway.He is lord of evil on this earth. Therefore the hooker must be purged of the evil that is within her. The evil within her makes her host to evil. Agreed?
Christians do believe that people are hosts to things, specifically evil. Tell a Catholic priest who performs exorcisms that there is no such thing as indwelling evil. Some Catholic priests are trained in exorcism.

Christian theology. Sin is not some evil that you harbor. It is you. You make the choice to sin. Why? Because that's what you want to do. Becoming a Christian is not some sort of exorcism. It is being given a new life, and the mere presence of that new life does NOT mean that you stop sinning. If you want to call sin evil, then do so. However, as I said before, the 'evil' perpetrated by a hooker is no different than the 'evil' perpetrated by the suburban housewife who shoplifts. Both acts violate God's commands, and are wrong.

What's your thing with hookers? Are you hung up on them, or just deliberately trying to caricature what Christians believe?

Sin is an act of rebellion, not necessarily evil. There are evil people in the world that have given their lives over to Satan (whether they realize it or not). Most sinners, however, just follow the philosophy that, if it feels good, do it.

Talking to a Jewish friend of mine, he said that it is a Jewish belief that rebellion is a part of growing up (including Adam and Eve), whether it is against your parents or against God. A sign of becoming an adult is accepting responsibility and realizing that your parents and God are not as stupid and out of touch as you thought.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I thought Christians took a harsher more judgemental view of prostitutes and those committing crimes.I don't understand it all but I do now it better now.

A lot of the bigotry has actually been a ruse to seize property of people that were successful (Jews, Muslims, Templars).

You will still find Christians that feel that certain groups of people are condemned. But, if you go back to the source, Jesus never condemned people. He was sad when people (like the rich young ruler) turned their backs on him but he definitely didn't advocate stoning them.

I had a friend that recently died who was charged with being a pediophile. He did do it. I loved him and still helped him when I could but I refused to let him try to justify or rationalize what he did. He had to take responsibility for and not trivialize it. Now he is in God's hands.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

All we see up here of American fundametalism is a series of semi-sanctimonious preachers on Larry King, for example, telling everyone on the panel that they are going to hell because they don't live according to the Christian ideal.Our air waves are bfilled with the likes of John Hagee and others every Sunday. We have had a lot of American right wing fundamentalists invading our country lately telling our MPs and us how to vote on gay rights issues, running ads and working with our minority conservative party trying to inject American right wing Christian ideology into our political and cultural lives. Theirs is an ideology of damnation, of black and white of good and evil. Those are the ones we are nervous about. So when I questioned DR's use of the hooker, it was because I immediately leapt to the more familiar fire and brimstone hell and damnation model of American Christianity. That's the one with the biggest public prescence. I do know Diana that there are moderates among you and I am grateful for your prescence down there.

When I used the word confused I was speaking to your interpretations of religious matters, probably taken out of context, or in wrong application to a particular situation. Things such as your insistence that Adam didn't eat pork but your aquiesence that Noah likely did or could have without any commandment from God against it. I see no connection between the two, nor any application to what you were saying, since there's no biblical evidence that meat of ANY kind was eaten prior to the flood. Not any I know of. The closest might have been Able being a keeper of sheep, but that could have been for the wool only, like raising chickens for their eggs. I don't know of any record of meat being eaten before the flood. I don't see why you are trying to connect that with some current day event. When I say "confused", it's such as that I refer to. I'm not implying you have some mental abnormality as you seem to interpret it.

would be the Arameic word that was originally used, not the Greek word that it was much later recorded as.

Dan

Jesus was the Son of God, so would not likely have had trouble speaking in any language as required. Greek was the lingua franca then. Most of the gospels were written in that language by ones fluent in it. A relevant exception would be Matthew, who wrote 'first in Hebrew, then did his own translation into Greek,' according to Jerome.
How many languages can dance on the head of a pin?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Jesus preached in Arameic. It was most likely his first language.

Dan

Bible was written in Greek. If He was quoting the Bible, as I recall He was in this case, it would not be unusual for Him to quote the Greek.

is true that Jesus is the Son of God. In his prehuman existence he did the work of creation per Jehovah's design (and especially enjoyed the part dealing with humans- Pro 8:30,31). So then he helped give us our wonderful power of speech, and was certainly involved in the creation of the many new languages at Babel. So language is a problem for bible translators, not for those writing it.

What tongue was spoken most often in that place and time is moot; historians are certain that Greek was as common as English is now, if not more so.
Bendichos, Doug en Nuevo Mexico

Jesus is God, and that He is the creator. John doesn't mention Jehovah although he does imply that all three persons of the Godhead were involved in creation. Thus, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and nothing that was made was made without Him. See the problem there DR? How could the son be made when NOTHING that was made was made without Him. It says quite clearly that He was not made (or created). He is eternal. He is God the Son.

Perhaps you can point to the scripture that tells us how Jesus was once the archangel Michael and was promoted to become the 'son' of God?

Can the Sox do it again, or will Torre get his prima donnas on the same page? And is RJ the ugliest pitcher in the majors?

I loved to play the game, but I've never had much interest in being a spectator. Same story in football.

I could watch it for hours!

Please be careful of the trap that comes from trying to reason in our own minds the things of God. The message of faith that God puts in your heart is the only one that matters. If something contradicts that, it can not be right.
Remember, it is that simple. God shows you the things that you need to know.

think and study, not engage is some form of mysticism.

please don't think that finding any stone that looks out of place means that you have chosen the wrong path.

I don't think you or your candidate are that far off, unless he's teaching that only his take is relevant. In other words, we know that (1) Jesus had to experience certain things for Jehovah's purposes to be carried out, and (2) he had many fine qualities, including 'the quality of mercy, which was not strained in him, but abundant.' (To paraphrase another fine writer.) Both are evident in the statement attributed to him. Both are part of the Jesus we need to learn about to get "everlasting life," which some of us think is not a bad idea. (John 17:3)

The fact that you're willing to 'do the homework' is fine with Jesus also: "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." The context is the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, so it's reasonable to take "meek" to mean 'humble; teachable.'

Here's a verse to cogitate on, when you have a chance:
?The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.? (Ps 37:29) Does any of that appeal to you? Is it a reasonable prospect? Or has the world gone past saving since David's day?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

His interpretation doesn't fit with much of the various Passion narratives, where Christ forbids resistance in the garden (in one version, even healing the damaged ear), etc. I smell a person liable to be more interested in the punishng God of the Old Testamanet than the merciful God of the New.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

if he were asked about this, given that there may be some disagreement among the candidates.

The next week he said something about thinking the Shroud of Turin might really be Jesus' burial clothes, and I think he's been crossed off the list as a possible candidate now.

If I ever see him again, I might ask him why he believes these things.

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

in which it was said there were two garments, not one, which contradicted the shroud of Turin as being the one and only cloth.

From Watchtower, 1979 4/1 p.15, Insight on the News
[quote]
From time to time publicity is given to the ?Shroud of Turin,? a cloth the full length of a body, supposedly showing the image of Jesus. Roman Catholics believe that the likeness came from its contact with the body of Jesus. Others doubt the claim.

However, was Jesus buried in a one-piece shroud? No, he was not. God?s inspired Word, the Holy Scriptures, states at John chapter 20, verses 6 and 7, that in the empty tomb after Jesus was resurrected the apostle Peter ?observed the wrappings on the ground and saw the piece of cloth which had covered the head not lying with the wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.??Catholic ?New American Bible.?

So there were several cloths, with a separate one around Jesus? head. Thus the ?Shroud of Turin? could not have been any part of the actual cloths used in Jesus? burial, since it is in one piece and Jesus was ?bound . . . in wrappings of cloth,? with a separate one being used for his head.?John 19:40, ?NAB.? [end quote]
Regards, Doug in New Mexico