L
Luvtosew
Guest
Osteen strikes me more as syrup------VERY sweet, but too much in big doses.
Plus, too much sugar and sweets is bad for you. Rots your teeth, among other things.
There ya go.
- Status
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Joel Osteen does not need to âsell out,â he preaches the Feel Good Gospel and there is no mention of sin included in his performances. Itâs all about how Jesus wants you to Live Your Best Life Now. It is a little bit of Biblical language sprinkled over a whole lot of pop psychology and success workshops.
His facial expressions betray his inner emptiness.
Smiling constantly and blinking his eyesâŚHeâs a man you want to trust. Unfortunately many people do trust him.
It was all he could do to tell Oprah that Scripture says homosexuality is a sin. You could tell that it bothered him to admit that the Bible actually says homosexuality is a SIN. He didnât want to say that HE believes it is a sin, but he did admit that Scripture says it is.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Yep----Osteen is Godâs âMan-to-make-you-Rich.â
I loved it when Oprah said to the effect âwell, you have over 16,000 members-----and some of them are almost certainly going to be gay----so how do you feel about homosexualityâis it a sin?â
You could see him hemming and hawing his way through that one. LOL. You could tell also that he did NOT want to possibly anger ONE member of his congregation. Or anybody in the TV audience either. Pure politically correct, relativistic âChritianity Lite.â
Oh, boy.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
J
jonbhorton
Guest
It would really help if people would read documents like Lumen Gentium, and various writings of people like St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, etc which flesh out and reinforce what Scripture says on this.
Understanding now that the Cross had its power throughout time (remember, Jesus was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world), and understanding the concept put forth in Romans 2, we can make quick sense of Job 19:
This video explains the dimensional concept pretty well: youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
It talks about âmultiversesâ but Iâm not focusing on that so much as the concept. Youâll notice in the end is says that all possibilities are realized in the 10th dimension, but necessitate a final and 11th dimension to produce all possibilities. Or rather, with the 11th dimension, all things are possible. Letâs change out â11th dimensionâ for âGodâ: With God, all things are possible. Sound familiar?
This is why Dr. Robert Griffiths said the following: âIf we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department.* The Physics department isnât much useâ [interview in Christianity Today, April 3, 1987, p.* 18]".
source: incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html
(psst- I recommend checking out some of the other quotes on the source page)
continued below.
1- We must realize that the concepts in which we deal are looked at within the confines of the dimension of linear time; conversely, we must realize God, and Jesus being the Word, and the Word being God, is outside of time. Eternity is not infinitely continued time, but in fact is being perfectly. That God describes Himself as âI AMâ illustrates this, and that we were given phrases like âwas, is and is to comeâ merely underscores the concept within the limits which we experience. Itâs literally, in more secular terms, outside of this dimension. The Bible, if you think about it, is extra-dimensional in terms of our limits, though it was given in those limits. God works within time, but from eternity. Make sense?
2- That these concepts are outside of time, namely our understanding of time, means that St. Justin Martyr was spot on when he said:
source: catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church
Understanding now that the Cross had its power throughout time (remember, Jesus was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world), and understanding the concept put forth in Romans 2, we can make quick sense of Job 19:
Was Jesus incarnate when Job said this? No. He was addressing an extra-dimensional reality which,* inside* the dimension it was expressed, was a long way away; outside, Christ lived and has since the beginning of Godâs way (which has no beginning but is eternal being [prov 8]). The power of the Cross, just like it provided grace to Our Lady for her Immaculate Conception, provides grace to all men who, by their own understanding of faith, in connection with the law written on their hearts by God, are saved. Dimensionally speaking: through the Church which is the earthly bearer of the fullness of truth, and thus can recognize that which is truthful and good in other religions/faiths/etc. That is not to say the particulars associated with those truthful and good concepts (Creator, hope for salvation, etc) are in and of themselves good. For example: It is good that the muslims believe in one God and ascribe to their understanding of God the title of Creator. But the particular way they go about that is woefully off in that they deny the Son. They donât actually know God. They just think and profess to know God. But they do still have that faith, which if true, will guide them to the Father through salvation, which is only inside the Church. For the natives in the Americas, it was good that they understood social laws in a moral sense, but it was not good that they did other things. However, those things became a law unto themselves and they will be judged as such if their conscience was not followed. The muslims, if they truly seek God, should find themselves drawn out of mohammedanism and into the Catholic Church- particularly if we are to reconcile both the subjective and objective chronologies. Many find this to be the case. If we accept that the Cross transcends the dimension of time, we must also accept it can transcend the 3 dimensions which are subject to time as perceived. This is demonstrated remarkably in Daliâs âCrucifixionâ with his use of a hypercube:
This video explains the dimensional concept pretty well: youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
It talks about âmultiversesâ but Iâm not focusing on that so much as the concept. Youâll notice in the end is says that all possibilities are realized in the 10th dimension, but necessitate a final and 11th dimension to produce all possibilities. Or rather, with the 11th dimension, all things are possible. Letâs change out â11th dimensionâ for âGodâ: With God, all things are possible. Sound familiar?
This is why Dr. Robert Griffiths said the following: âIf we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department.* The Physics department isnât much useâ [interview in Christianity Today, April 3, 1987, p.* 18]".
source: incolor.inetnebr.com/gaskell/Martin_Gaskell_Bible_Astronomy.html
(psst- I recommend checking out some of the other quotes on the source page)
continued below.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
Putting this together, letâs go back to Romans:
Romans 2:
What Joel Osteen and his ilk do is present an answer which is really a question that has been re-phrased to appear as an answer. Thatâs dangerous. What the Church does is present these truths in a manner which is explained, and backed up, through re-presentations of what has always been and always will be.
To ignore these truths in light of a philosophy which is subjectively proper in chronology, but flawed in objective chronology, totally skews what salvation was, is and will be, or rather, is.
To say no one was saved before Jesusâ incarnation because they didnât believe on His name is taking passages like the 3rd chapter of Johnâs Gospel out of context. If, then, there was salvation (through the Cross) outside of knowledge of the Cross and Jesus, that does not mean it was not in the context of Calvaryâs eternal impact, but rather it is TOTALLY in the context of Calvary.
That the Church is given authority through Christ and His Sacrifice on Calvary, means that it has earthly authority and rightful claim to being the earthly kingdom. It then is the earthly source of salvationâs full truth and can recognize salvific elements. All of this while still understanding that the structure containing these elements is not the fullness of truth, which only the Church possesses.
Many paths do lead to God, and Pope Benedict XVI, having spoken as then Cardinal Ratzinger, is totally spot on.
Joel Osteen, however, is a mental midget or a coward.
hoping I didnât enter into material heresy and demanding correction if I did
Romans 2:
3- If we are to accept and believe that the Cross was able to reach back through time and forward through time, should we not also understand that the Cross can have its intended effect throughout the objective chronology, despite the subjective view of the chronological processes of the Churchâs earthly existence? If not, and âextra ecclesiam nulla salusâ is to be taken within the tangible, subjective chronological context of the Church built on St. Peterâs profession, then: Scripture is a lie, many Patriarchs were liars, St. Paul was a liar, etc, ultimately leading to God is a liar. I personally would rather not be a whitewashed tomb, but realize that I am not to dictate to God who He saves and how He saves them. Rather, I should trust in God that just as I, once ignorant and decreasingly so, am on the path of Salvation, so too are others.
#4- The narrow path: a path is a way to get somewhere. It may go through various areas. I cannot take the path to cross the Tiber without being in the Tiber at some point, or crossing a bridge. But what if I never knew the Tiber existed, and on the other side was the physical Church? Are we saying we are now saved through works and tangible things? Of course not. Rather, the crossing of the Tiber is, though a physical metaphor (cf. LG 6), spiritual. It is, ultimately, the walk with God (though unknown in its full aspect), which led to a spiritual crossing. It is, to reference the book of Jeremiah, the road less traveled and comprises the narrow path, with a narrow gate.What Joel Osteen and his ilk do is present an answer which is really a question that has been re-phrased to appear as an answer. Thatâs dangerous. What the Church does is present these truths in a manner which is explained, and backed up, through re-presentations of what has always been and always will be.
To ignore these truths in light of a philosophy which is subjectively proper in chronology, but flawed in objective chronology, totally skews what salvation was, is and will be, or rather, is.
To say no one was saved before Jesusâ incarnation because they didnât believe on His name is taking passages like the 3rd chapter of Johnâs Gospel out of context. If, then, there was salvation (through the Cross) outside of knowledge of the Cross and Jesus, that does not mean it was not in the context of Calvaryâs eternal impact, but rather it is TOTALLY in the context of Calvary.
That the Church is given authority through Christ and His Sacrifice on Calvary, means that it has earthly authority and rightful claim to being the earthly kingdom. It then is the earthly source of salvationâs full truth and can recognize salvific elements. All of this while still understanding that the structure containing these elements is not the fullness of truth, which only the Church possesses.
Many paths do lead to God, and Pope Benedict XVI, having spoken as then Cardinal Ratzinger, is totally spot on.
Joel Osteen, however, is a mental midget or a coward.
hoping I didnât enter into material heresy and demanding correction if I did
L
ltwin
Guest
I saw it. It made me cringe. Most people realize that Osteen is a light weight when it comes to actually preaching. He is great as a motivator but that doesnât qualify him to pastor a church.Hey folksâŚ
I was watching Oprah interview Joel Osteen, the TV minister, in OWS, her so far mostly-boring network.
Anyway------interesting interview--------Osteen was asked by Oprah (as I knew she would, being a committed New Ager, and also in the interest of her non-Christian audience, to be fair) whether there is âonly one path to God or many.â
Osteen replied to the effect----
âThere is only one path to God----that is through Jesus-----however, there are MANY paths to Jesus.â
What do you think of this? Iâm sorry, but that does not make sense to me. How can one arrive at Jesus through (letâs say) Buddhism or Hinduism?
Maybe Osteen is trying to be too PC, maybe?
Just wanted a second opinion.
Well?
At the least, he should stop doing these interviews if he isnât willing to speak the truth.
N
Nicea325
Guest
First of all, the fact it is coming from Oprahâs (New Age) mouth to Joel Olsteen (Nice smile & suit), I know neither has ever said anything worth my time.Hey folksâŚ
I was watching Oprah interview Joel Osteen, the TV minister, in OWS, her so far mostly-boring network.
Anyway------interesting interview--------Osteen was asked by Oprah (as I knew she would, being a committed New Ager, and also in the interest of her non-Christian audience, to be fair) whether there is âonly one path to God or many.â
Osteen replied to the effect----
âThere is only one path to God----that is through Jesus-----however, there are MANY paths to Jesus.â
What do you think of this? Iâm sorry, but that does not make sense to me. How can one arrive at Jesus through (letâs say) Buddhism or Hinduism?
Maybe Osteen is trying to be too PC, maybe?
Just wanted a second opinion.
Well?
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
True. :yup::yup:
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
He is honey for itching ears.
meltzerboy
New member
Osteen probably means there are many paths to Jesus through Christianity. IOW, heâs accepting of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well as the various denominations of Protestantism. I doubt he would go so far as to incorporate religions outside of Christianity. I have no idea what he thinks of Mormonism and Jehovahâs Witnesses.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Jesus is the God/man, the SonHey folksâŚ
I was watching Oprah interview Joel Osteen, the TV minister, in OWS, her so far mostly-boring network.
Anyway------interesting interview--------Osteen was asked by Oprah (as I knew she would, being a committed New Ager, and also in the interest of her non-Christian audience, to be fair) whether there is âonly one path to God or many.â
Osteen replied to the effect----
âThere is only one path to God----that is through Jesus-----however, there are MANY paths to Jesus.â
What do you think of this? Iâm sorry, but that does not make sense to me. How can one arrive at Jesus through (letâs say) Buddhism or Hinduism?
Maybe Osteen is trying to be too PC, maybe?
Just wanted a second opinion.
Well?
God the Father is the Father
There are many paths to God/man
There is only one path to God the Father through the God/manâŚhowever since they are not seperate entities unless you are JW or Mormon there is only one path to God.
- Status