Let's Talk About Sin

#201
#201
Daloth said:
I think what most mean when they say studying "The original word" is by reading it in its native language of hebrew or latin.

People don't understand just how much is cut out in translation alone, let alone all out intentional removal (See, the Gospels Thomas, Nicodemus, Eve).

One of my very good friends is getting her masters in theology, she reads hebrew fluently and most latin, and whenever I read a verse that I think seems weird or don't like, I'll message her on facebook or call her up and ask her what the original says and ask her to translate it for me more literally or even less literally. I've found knowing the original language makes the already oft argued upon stories and verses much more clear, even in the instances where the literal translation is lost because its an aphorism or a phrase that doesn't make sense to us now.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of intentionally cutting out something? The Gospels you mention were not included for valid reasons and the strictist methods were used to confirm (not determine) the canon. Those Gospels were never "cut out."

Agreed that the original language does clarify.
 
#203
#203
Roustabout said:
Do you have any examples of intentionally cutting out something? The Gospels you mention were not included for valid reasons and the strictist methods were used to confirm (not determine) the canon. Those Gospels were never "cut out."

Agreed that the original language does clarify.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own statement. A group of "holy men" who were offended a thousand years after the books were compiled doesn't equate to "strictest methods."

The gospel of eve was removed because of its sexual nature (despite the bible being full of sex and terrible acts) and because of it stating men and women are equal, something the church could have no part of. Thomas was removed because it showed that Jesus was not perfect, but human (which he was not perfect if he was a man) and because it had dragons.

There's also a reason some churches still use these books today, because they know that king james and the catholic church (especially post Great Schism) has no right to alter or change anything in the bible, at least according TO the bible of course. Unless we assume they are god incarnate or sent by god to change them, which I ask why them and not Joseph Smith or Muhammad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#204
#204
Daloth said:
You just answered your own statement. A group of "holy men" who were offended a thousand years after the books were compiled doesn't equate to "strictest methods."

The gospel of eve was removed because of its sexual nature (despite the bible being full of sex and terrible acts) and because of it stating men and women are equal, something the church could have no part of. Thomas was removed because it showed that Jesus was not perfect, but human (which he was not perfect if he was a man) and because it had dragons.

There's also a reason some churches still use these books today, because they know that king james and the catholic church (especially post Great Schism) has no right to alter or change anything in the bible, at least according TO the bible of course. Unless we assume they are god incarnate or sent by god to change them, which I ask why them and not Joseph Smith or Muhammad?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I question whether you have actually researched this. The GOT was written in the late 2nd century, over 100 years after Thomas lived. It is actually not even a Gospel, but a collection of over 100 sayings. It seems that you are simply regurgitating faulty arguments that you are taking on faith. If you are going to be skeptical fine, but at least be consistent and apply the same skepticism to your sources.

One of the key components of NT canonicity is whether the writing was ever conidered authoritative by early church. Thomas wasn't. And, I've yet to know of any orthodox church that uses either Thomas or Eve.
The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

The gospel of Thomas fails all of these tests. I would hope you are aware of the aberrant gnostic movement, and why it was so easy to reject these extra-biblical writings.

Read more: What is the gospel of Thomas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#208
#208
Study charles spurgeon and that should help you understand what I follow.

The following sermon should provide some insight.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0156.htm
 
Last edited:
#209
#209
mtt2d said:
Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

He is an old author and his work on the Textus Receptus seems to follow the same lines of thinking as your posts would indicate. So I just was trying to see where your thought process on the original manuscripts originated from.

Don't take that as an attack ..... I have been a student of the word a long time and read many authors and enjoy different opinions I hear or read
 
Last edited:
#210
#210
mtt2d said:
Study charles spurgeon and that should help you understand what I follow.

The following sermon should provide some insight.

Fear Not
Click to expand...

I enjoy Charles Spurgeon very much, as a matter of fact I own a complete set of Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit all 63 volumes

Also his John Plowman talks, Sermon notes and have long enjoyed his work on Psalms The Treasury of David, which I own as well
 
#211
#211
Coastypop said:
I enjoy Charles Spurgeon very much, as a matter of fact I own a complete set of Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit all 63 volumes

Also his John Plowman talks, Sermon notes and have long enjoyed his work on Psalms The Treasury of David, which I own as well
Click to expand...

Then you probably know more about him than me. :) I want to start collecting a few books myself. The ones you mention are probably ones I need. I try to stay open minded with my beliefs and what i study and I will start really digging in any day now.
 
#212
#212
mtt2d said:
Then you probably know more about him than me. :) I want to start collecting a few books myself. The ones you mention are probably ones I need. I try to stay open minded with my beliefs and what i study and I will start really digging in any day now.
Click to expand...

Just don't be so open minded your brain falls out. I used to read a lot of Spurgeon. What I find is that we often give these men's writings more credence than the Bible they are commenting on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#213
#213
Vol8188 said:
So Ghandi goes to hell because he was born in the wrong country.

Pedophiles and mass murders go to heaven, as long as they repent?

What kinda ####ed up god are you boys worshipping?
Click to expand...

Have you read the bible?
 
#215
#215
mtt2d said:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I didn't know the origional text was still around until about ten years ago. Faithful men and women have passed it down and it is available. I don't study it (yet) but several people before me did. That's why I mentioned spurgeon

Yes I do believ in predestination. Hardly anyone does these days. I don't know why it's not preached much anymore but it's crucial to salvation. And yes, it scare me too.

No one has ever followed christ's footsteps to a T. Don't let anyone fool you. I want to repeat what Phil robertson said here about those who will inherent the kingdom and it's true. We all have to repent and trust Christ.

I'm glad for your response Weezer. I've been in and out tonight. Sorry for the delay In response.
Click to expand...

Several thread topics here. I'd be willing to discuss if you start a thread.
-What does it mean to "repent?" is a good one. The most misunderstood word in the Bible.

-Predesdination. Predestination is a biblical term. That isn't up for argument. However, how one defines presestination is really the controversy. Is predestination about the 'who' or the 'to?' Spurgeon was inconsistent on the topic, but I believe he leaned more towards the reformed view, which undermines the Gospel.
 
#216
#216
Vol8188 said:
So Ghandi is in heaven? And pedophiles are in hell, even if they love baby Jesus?
Click to expand...

The problem with this appeal is it is strictly emotional.
Can a murderer go to heaven? Yes. Can any sinner, regardless of the horrid nature of the sin, go to heaven? Yes.

Your assumption is that Ghandi is MORE deserving of heaven. You are measuring fitness by some arbitrary morality, likely your self. The Bible teaches that none deserve heaven. Not one. The truth of the cross is that ALL sin really was paid for. So, the issue of heaven or hell is not a sin issue per se. Ghandi had read about Jesus and knew the claims of the NT. He rejected those as true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#217
#217
Roustabout said:
The problem with this appeal is it is strictly emotional.
Can a murderer go to heaven? Yes. Can any sinner, regardless of the horrid nature of the sin, go to heaven? Yes.

Your assumption is that Ghandi is MORE deserving of heaven. You are measuring fitness by some arbitrary morality, likely your self. The Bible teaches that none deserve heaven. Not one. The truth of the cross is that ALL sin really was paid for. So, the issue of heaven or hell is not a sin issue per se. Ghandi had read about Jesus and knew the claims of the NT. He rejected those as true.
Click to expand...

So you consider it just for your god to send Ghandi to heaven for simply being born to parents of the wrong religion?

But if a pedophile was lucky enough to be raised southern baptist, he gets to spend all eternity with countless dumpster babies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#218
#218
Vol8188 said:
So you consider it just for your god to send Ghandi to heaven for simply being born to parents of the wrong religion?
O
But if a pedophile was lucky enough to be raised southern baptist, he gets to spend all eternity with countless dumpster babies?
Click to expand...
Ghandi isn't going to Hell for being born to the wrong parents. You are asking questions that are laced with antagonistic thinking.

This objection is old, tired and answered. BTW, no one is asking you to be accountable for Ghandi or anyone else for that matter. Your phrasing only shows that no answer will satisfy. You have poisoned the well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#219
#219
Roustabout said:
Ghandi isn't going to Hell for being born to the wrong parents. You are asking questions that are laced with antagonistic thinking.

This objection is old, tired and answered. BTW, no one is asking you to be accountable for Ghandi or anyone else for that matter. Your phrasing only shows that no answer will satisfy. You have poisoned the well.
Click to expand...

My point is that the vast majority of people simply inherit their religion, or the religion common to their area. So I find it highly unjust for any god to simply send someone to hell for being born to the wrong family.
 
#222
#222
Vol8188 said:
My point is that the vast majority of people simply inherit their religion, or the religion common to their area. So I find it highly unjust for any god to simply send someone to hell for being born to the wrong family.
Click to expand...

Were humans evolved by evolution or were we put here by aliens? What's your belief?
 
#224
#224
Vol8188 said:
My point is that the vast majority of people simply inherit their religion, or the religion common to their area. So I find it highly unjust for any god to simply send someone to hell for being born to the wrong family.
Click to expand...

And I hope you understand that you are committing what is referred to as the genetic fallacy.

I also find it unjust as well, as I've already stated, and am thankful that this is not the case.

BTW, what is your source for justice? You obviously are using some standard, so please share with us.
 
#225
#225
Roustabout said:
And I hope you understand that you are committing what is referred to as the genetic fallacy.

I also find it unjust as well, as I've already stated, and am thankful that this is not the case.

BTW, what is your source for justice? You obviously are using some standard, so please share with us.
Click to expand...

How is this not the case? And I use my own personnel sense of justice.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top