How does this God make you feel?

[grace_singh]

Would you honestly read this passage and think “this must be about Jesus?” Did Jesus wear crowns of silver and gold? Does that sound like something Jesus would do? Is he a high priest…or did he argue with the high priests? Did he build a temple…no. Did he ever sit upon his throne? He was never even described as a priest. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could get Jesus from this quote.

Christ is King.

He is also the Great High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek.

He is the Temple, and raised the Temple of His body up after three days.

He is also the Branch, of David and Jesse, and Messiah.

 

[hellopeople]

Christ is King.

He is also the Great High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek.

He is the Temple, and raised the Temple of His body up after three days.

He is also the Branch, of David and Jesse, and Messiah.

Do you not agree that this is a serious stretch? Have a random person read the gospels and then have them read that passage and ask if they think it is about Jesus. I can only imagine the great majority of people would say no. You are taking what is clear and making it obscure. There is no reason for you to assume that this passage is full of metaphors unless you are trying to put Jesus into the OT.

 

[StrawberryJam]

This just makes me laugh. You mention the Buddha as though I do not hold him in high regard. You have not proved anything. Why must there be a prophecy of Jesus coming?

Edit: lol at your “careful how you answer.”

I have not intended to “prove anything”.

I may have mistaken you for a christian poster based on other replies and posts you have made here.

My point, is that some christians would love to make the OT go away quietly, but they KNOW they NEED it to back up the Jesus story. No OT, No Jesus.

 

[twinc]

In my opinion God didn’t create the world like it says in the bible and adam never existed.

and Jesus Christ didnt exist either or he who existed as him was an idiot and a fool and made a grave and deadly mistake dying for what Adam who never existed didnt do anyway - twinc

 

[hellopeople]

and Jesus Christ didnt exist either or he who existed as him was an idiot and a fool and made a grave and deadly mistake dying for what Adam who never existed didnt do anyway - twinc

Comparing the OT’s historical accuracy to the NT’s historical accuracy is absurd. The story of Adam was supposedly written about 3,000 years after it “happened.” The story of Jesus was documented within a generation of Jesus’ death.

To be honest I was under the impression that the church didn’t believe that Adam and Eve existed either. One of my cousin’s, who is in the seminary right now told me that they were taught that the story of Adam and Eve never actually happened.

But honestly, do you not see the difference between a story depicting the beginning of time, and one about a person that died only 30-40 years before?

 

[twinc]

Comparing the OT’s historical accuracy to the NT’s historical accuracy is absurd. The story of Adam was supposedly written about 3,000 years after it “happened.” The story of Jesus was documented within a generation of Jesus’ death.

To be honest I was under the impression that the church didn’t believe that Adam and Eve existed either. One of my cousin’s, who is in the seminary right now told me that they were taught that the story of Adam and Eve never actually happened.

But honestly, do you not see the difference between a story depicting the beginning of time, and one about a person that died only 30-40 years before?

quotes are wrongly used in the wrong places to justify a stance or conclusion.Here you have,one knows not why, left out the main and essential ingredient viz God.God is the inspiration and author of Scriptures.Some glibly quote as regards the days of creation “that a day is[as] a thousand years to the Lord” but this quote continues and should be accepted here “a thousand years is [as] a day to the Lord” - twinc

 

[twinc]

Comparing the OT’s historical accuracy to the NT’s historical accuracy is absurd. The story of Adam was supposedly written about 3,000 years after it “happened.” The story of Jesus was documented within a generation of Jesus’ death.

To be honest I was under the impression that the church didn’t believe that Adam and Eve existed either. One of my cousin’s, who is in the seminary right now told me that they were taught that the story of Adam and Eve never actually happened.

But honestly, do you not see the difference between a story depicting the beginning of time, and one about a person that died only 30-40 years before?

yes this is how they never were told that no one told Jesus Christ,this is some of the nonsense some Catholics seem to have accepted - twinc

 

[hellopeople]

yes this is how they never were told that no one told Jesus Christ,this is some of the nonsense some Catholics seem to have accepted - twinc

“nonsense some catholic seem to have accepted?”…more like “nonsense that Catholic priests are learning in the seminary.”

Also I don’t really understand this or your last post.

 

[Think_About_It]

and may i say God would never command such a thing

Minus the suicide bit, God commanded* just *such a thing. You’re incredulous to the horrific things God might potentially have commanded in other religions but you fail to acknowledge the horror in your own because of some invincible ignorance rationalization. If I don’t believe in God, it is only because I don’t see the evidence; am I thereby granted invincible ignorance? By the brain with which I am equipped, and the environment in which I was placed, and the experiences I’ve had, it would be impossible for me to come to any other conclusion. The invincible ignorance bit gets washed up in the fact that you have to draw a line in the sand as to where someone goes from simple ignorance to outright rejection of God (not the idea of God, but God himself). I’ve never known a person to first believe in God, and reject him. It’s extremely silly.

 

[bleh_confused]

Minus the suicide bit, God commanded* just *such a thing. You’re incredulous to the horrific things God might potentially have commanded in other religions but you fail to acknowledge the horror in your own because of some invincible ignorance rationalization. If I don’t believe in God, it is only because I don’t see the evidence; am I thereby granted invincible ignorance? By the brain with which I am equipped, and the environment in which I was placed, and the experiences I’ve had, it would be impossible for me to come to any other conclusion. The invincible ignorance bit gets washed up in the fact that you have to draw a line in the sand as to where someone goes from simple ignorance to outright rejection of God (not the idea of God, but God himself). I’ve never known a person to first believe in God, and reject him. It’s extremely silly.

fair enough…what evidence could possibly make you not believe in God?

and as to the commanding an “unjust” thing, may i say God could not command something unjust because He is perfect.

also, invincible ignorance applies to all people, not just Catholics. and rejection of God is entirely different from ignorance of Him, the line couldn’t be too impossible to draw

 

[Think_About_It]

fair enough…what evidence could possibly make you not believe in God?

Not to be facetious, but the same type of evidence that would lead me not to believe in anything mythical (i.e., I don’t have any experience of God, and what experiences I have had, that I once attributed to God, have conspicuously natural explanations). The degree to which we have faith in God and believe in him is proportional to what we’ve learned (at least to some degree): A person who has never learned about God will never worship God, because there will be otherwise no indication that he exists. You first believed in God when someone told you He existed. Belief in God never precedes the suggestion first, that he exists. The suggestion is a very powerful one, as well as attractive. Most everything people, through history, have explained with divine and mythical things have had natural explanations, and to me, God is no exception. In a real ardent debate, it might come down to “why is there something rather than nothing?” but plugging God in as an answer, for the lack of our own knowledge, is a hasty manoeuvre. I would continue to wonder why God seems so elusive to everybody else (the non-monotheistic-subscribing individuals, that is).

and as to the commanding an “unjust” thing, may i say God could not command something unjust because He is perfect.

I understand that. The argument isn’t “This supposedly horrific event isn’t unjust because it is impossible for God to preform an unjust act.” The argument is, “by every conception we have of justice and morality, the murdering of innocent people suggests that God is not just, at least as He appeals to our reason.” That God must be excempt from things that, if men did them they would be evil, seems evidence, not that he is just, but that he doesn’t have to be because he’s God (which seems to be a contradiction).

also, invincible ignorance applies to all people, not just Catholics. and rejection of God is entirely different from ignorance of Him, the line couldn’t be too impossible to draw

I reject the idea of God. I can’t possibly reject, personally, what I don’t believe in. And If I’m rejecting, not God himself, but his alleged existence, it must speak (at least from the point of your argument) to my ignorance and not simply my defiance. If I thought there was a God, I would surely love Him, or get on His good side, or whatever it is us finite, petty humans would do for a god, but I just don’t believe in Him. Am I ignorant, or am I defiant? Defiance would surely land me in Hell, but with ignorance, I am invincible (I would like to clarify that I am not just willfully blind - I tried with every bit of emotional and intellectual muster to commune with God and be a follower, but the effort was hollow; I didn’t feel anything).

Do you see where I’m coming from?

 

[twinc]

“nonsense some catholic seem to have accepted?”…more like “nonsense that Catholic priests are learning in the seminary.”

Also I don’t really understand this or your last post.

so surprise,surprise not only has the devil free access to seminaries and other places of learning but also the Vatican one must presume - btw read my two posts in conjunction to get a complete response that the OT is just as inerrant as the NT and that JC accepted the existence of Adam and Eve and that a thousand years is as a day to the Lord - twinc

 

[crazzeto]

Other question - here:

“Just as an off-shoot: you Christians must find it completely understandable (given the beliefs they hold about their Deity) why some Muslim extremists blow themselves up in market places (because God is allegedly a fan of that behaviour). Would you say that’s true? If God ordered suicide bombings, for his glory, in our culture’s holy book and not theirs, you’d say it was good and just, and that this is still obviously the creator of everything that ever was or is?”

Christ left a clear set of guiding principals which we must follow, these pricipals exclude any idea that one can become a “martyr” through comming an act of horrendous violence. More over, God doesn’t change his mind, so it’s not possible that God will wake up tomorrow and say “changed my mind, start bombing people”. If anyone were to claim to have such a message, we would know that it is inauthentic.

If a Christian does engage in such violence, they would be liable to judgment.

Edit
Oh and I do realize you’re trying to ask a “yeah but what if he did…” question… So I repeat, he won’t because God doesn’t change his mind and he laid out his precepts for us. But, for your further edification, here is a homily written by Pope Benedict XVI about justification in Christianity

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

 

[Think_About_It]

Christ left a clear set of guiding principals which we must follow, these pricipals exclude any idea that one can become a “martyr” through comming an act of horrendous violence. More over, God doesn’t change his mind, so it’s not possible that God will wake up tomorrow and say “changed my mind, start bombing people”. If anyone were to claim to have such a message, we would know that it is inauthentic.

If a Christian does engage in such violence, they would be liable to judgment.

Edit
Oh and I do realize you’re trying to ask a “yeah but what if he did…” question… So I repeat, he won’t because God doesn’t change his mind and he laid out his precepts for us. But, for your further edification, here is a homily written by Pope Benedict XVI about justification in Christianity

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

If God ordered bombings, it would be a perfectly moral act because God said so. That’s the answer. It’s still horrific though. I don’t feel any different about the OT God, y’naw’um’sayin’?

 

[crazzeto]

If God ordered bombings, it would be a perfectly moral act because God said so. That’s the answer. It’s still horrific though. I don’t feel any different about the OT God, y’naw’um’sayin’?

No, I gave you the correct answer. You’re making your own up here.

 

[Think_About_It]

No, I gave you the correct answer. You’re making your own up here.

But you do believe that it’s God’s precedent that makes an act moral and not our subjective interpretation, no?

 

[crazzeto]

But you do believe that it’s God’s precedent that makes an act moral and not our subjective interpretation, no?

It is God, who set an enternal, i.e. unchangable moral code. So your question is a false one. God doensn’t command us to sin, suicide bombings are gravly sinful on multiple levels. There for, God will never command one to undertake sucide bombings.

I really hope it isn’t vien “what if’s” like this that are you keeping you from exploring the faith. These questions are rooted in what I assume, is an understandable lack of understanding of the faith. If I may be so bold, it sounds like you probably never had any real exposer to Christianity, beyond veage (and false) “religion is responcible for more deaths than anything else” comments.

 

[Think_About_It]

It is God, who set an enternal, i.e. unchangable moral code. So your question is a false one. God doensn’t command us to sin, suicide bombings are gravly sinful on multiple levels. There for, God will never command one to undertake sucide bombings.

I really hope it isn’t vien “what if’s” like this that are you keeping you from exploring the faith. These questions are rooted in what I assume, is an understandable lack of understanding of the faith. If I may be so bold, it sounds like you probably never had any real exposer to Christianity, beyond veage (and false) “religion is responcible for more deaths than anything else” comments.

Naw, I’m really not into that whole shtick. My exposure to Christianity was long and personal. But the fact remains (forget my example if it helps): It is God’s will that makes an act moral and not our subjective interpretation of it. I’m sure you agree with that. My point is that if God asked horrific things from his children, it would be moral nonetheless, because it would be from God. That, as a mere point of illustration, is how I feel about the OT God and the barbaric war-mongering that happened therein.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is God, who set an enternal, i.e. unchangable moral code. So your question is a false one. God doensn’t command us to sin, suicide bombings are gravly sinful on multiple levels. There for, God will never command one to undertake sucide bombings.

I really hope it isn’t vien “what if’s” like this that are you keeping you from exploring the faith. These questions are rooted in what I assume, is an understandable lack of understanding of the faith. If I may be so bold, it sounds like you probably never had any real exposer to Christianity, beyond veage (and false) “religion is responcible for more deaths than anything else” comments.

I was never a christian. So, your argument boils down to, one must have “special knowledge” to understand these complexities??

 

[crazzeto]

I was never a christian. So, your argument boils down to, one must have “special knowledge” to understand these complexities??

What complexities? That God will not command one to Sin? It’s not a complexity, more of an axiom. In fact we Christians are not exclusive in this belief. God has written his laws in our hearts, this is called the natural law.