By: richarddowne
27/08/2009
2:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
richarddowne Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
So here we see in simple black and white how the true divine from of Christianity became human and began down the long slippery road to empty soulless dogma.
1st form - Mark 9:40 he that is not against us is for us
2nd form - Matthew 12:30 he that is not with me is against me.
3rd form - Luke 9:50 he that is not against you is for you.
Both Matthew and Luke have Marks version in front of them when they write yet,Matthew changes his text into the exact opposite of what Mark had originally suggested Jesus said. Two out of three versions of this saying of Jesus are open to a variety of approachs to the wonder of God,while one out of three says there is only one way. To our great discredit,institutional Christianity has always acted on the basis of the minority report of Matthew. |
|
By: xavarian1
27/08/2009
4:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
xavarian1 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Your point is....humanity is evil or something? |
|
By: tellthetruth888
27/08/2009
4:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
tellthetruth888 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
What did the bible actually say?
Mark 9:
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Luke 9:
48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Matt: 12:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Now we are clearer as to why there is the opposite in Matt 12. |
|
By: capscor57
27/08/2009
4:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
capscor57 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Pffffft!!!..
This just tells me that Mark , Matthew and Luke were despotic autocrats..... Much like that destiny church idiot Brian Tamaki!!!!!! |
|
By: datagarble
27/08/2009
4:33 pm Yahoo! Profile:
datagarble Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
How come theres apostles called Mathew,Luke and John anyway?
Was there a Welsh rugby team touring the mid-east or something?
surprised there isnt a Barry or Darrel |
|
By: diversityunified@ymail.com
31/08/2009
3:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
diversityunified@ymail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| The point is Gods form of Christianity and Gods form of Islam is ment to be a tolerant inclusive faith and not like mans forms of these great world faiths which shows intolerance and separation. The Baha'i faith will re-unite all true followers of the one God be they Christian,Muslim,Jewish etc etc. |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
1/09/2009
6:37 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
richard, I don't get the problem. They are saying the same thing, maybe you have trouble understanding sentence structure.
I also don't see how these quotes can be construed as negative. They are merely affirmations of the clarity of Christs' message.
If these statements can be construed into political objectives, what is that to God, or Jesus?
Jesus message was one of loving your enemy, and to take a single statement out of context is no more than politicising in itself.
Why not look for the intended, positive meanings of what Jesus said, instead of twisting it for your own unfounded arguments? |
|
By: richarddowne
1/09/2009
4:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
richarddowne Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Hi Rocknroller. The point i was trying to make was how Mark in 9:40 says "he that is not against us is for us" is a very inclusive positive statement which has the true essence of Christianity as has Lukes in 9:50 "he that is not against you is for you" where as Matthews 12:30 "he that is not with me is against me" is completely the opposite of the other two its exclusive and negative and unfortunately the one that was most often used and accepted by institutional Christianity but of course thank goodness not by all Christians. |
|
By: yangsback
1/09/2009
4:42 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yangsback Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Richarddowne
What exactly are you trying to incite here
Has'nt religion caused enough grief in the world already
Feck off |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
2/09/2009
5:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hi Richard
There are a few comments in your posts that suggest some confusion.
Firstly the verses you cite all say the same thing.
The underlying meaning is consistent and coherent.
Secondly I don't know where you get the idea that Christianity is a 'truly inclusive' faith. Christianity is unashamedly exclusive, and the Bible consistently affirms that. Jesus himself said "I am the way, the truth and the life; NO ONE comes to the father but through me". In the Old Testament the Israelite nation incurred the anger of God by worshiping idols and 'false gods'. In the New Testament Paul describes the pagan religions and their followers as 'foolish'.
You may not like the Christian message, but you should not sanitise it. It is the message that there is only one way to be reconciled to God, through Jesus. |
|
By: tekepiro69er
2/09/2009
6:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
tekepiro69er Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Jesus loves me, this I know,
Though my hair is white as snow.
Though my sight is growing dim,
Still He bids me trust in him.
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.
Though my steps are oh, so slow,
With my hand in his I'll go.
On through life, let come what may,
He'll be there to lead the way.
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so. |
|
By: davidadair59
8/09/2009
3:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
davidadair59 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I think your missing the point here deecee. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is IN ITS PUREST FORM infact an inclusive faith and was changed . Thats the big big difference between what Mark wrote and Matthew wrote. And of course thats why the essence was lost and thus the true effectiveness of what Christianity was ment to do was watered down by mans meddling. |
|
By: docmountain@xtra.co.nz
16/09/2009
3:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
docmountain@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I just love those that quote the Bible as Gospel - pun!- in fun. Heresay evidence, (antidotal recollections of he said she said)is not admissible. Like all historic recollections the Bible is a collection of 'yarns' of alleged events and happenings over a 400 year period (or so). The existence of God will only be proved when AND IF you front the big fella once you are DEAD. In the mean time best quote is DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOUSELF. Sometimes you do need to DO IT before the A holes of he world do it unto you. believe me it works. Doc |
|
By: rainbow.bridge@xtra.co.nz
25/09/2009
3:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rainbow.bridge@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Bottom line is Christianity in its original true form is ment to be inclusive. |
|
By: brianmillen@rocketmail.com
3/10/2009
7:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
brianmillen@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Absolutely Rainbow. |
|
By: trueseek1us
14/10/2009
3:28 am Yahoo! Profile:
trueseek1us Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Don't bother me with the fact that these 3 passages are saying the same exact thing: If we are empowered to cast demons in the name of Jesus (not Mohammad, Buddha or an unrepentant one), then even Apostles should not stop the work of God. It does not matter that Jesus said: "He Who trusts ME is not condemned and has Eternal Life BUT He who chooses not to trust Me and turns His back on Me, his words condemn him for he has chosen a path separate from God" or "I am the ONLY WAY to The Father, No one can come to The Father except through ME" or the other 100s of words from God Himself throughout Scripture and Church Historical writings of faithful Martyrs, what matters is what I want to believe even if it is obviously NOT True :-) Leave me to die in my sin but don't tell me that Jesus is exclusive. I want to have my poison and live. I want to go to be with demons and still infest The Pure Ones with my evil. I want to bring God down from his throne and exalt myself.
All the above are reflective of the post's belief. rainbow rules ...in darkness and apart from Truth, but it rules among the deceived.
There is a better path of True Love--> Christ Jesus as Savior and LORD. Find him in messages at www.ancientfaith.com if you are open minded to God's Love |
|
By: whynottrythisone
14/10/2009
4:36 am Yahoo! Profile:
whynottrythisone Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
lets face it the bible is the ultimmate game of Chinese whispers, it's been translated, edited and generally fkked with so many times this is the truth...
A monk is working in the depths of the vatican decyphering the old scroll know to the church. He's been at it for decades, this is his lifes work. Starts at six, lunch at 12 and up for dinner at 6;30
One day he misses lunch, the other clergy aren't too concerned, they know how obessed he is with unravelling Gods every word. But when the preist misses dinner they send a team down to find him. There he is in the lowest catacomb smacking his forehead into the rough rock wall with dull repitition until just as they enter he falls unconcious.
He's hopitalised, IV drips, medications, the works. Finally he emerges from his catatonia but still refuses to speak. Finally in desperation they take him before the Pope who commands him to speak of what he has learned.
"THE FUGGING WORD WAS CELEBRATE, NOT CELIBATE." |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
14/10/2009
7:38 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| whynot - the Bible has nothing in common with Chinese whispers. Despite your insistence the fact is the Bible has been accurately translated for at least 2,000 years and most certainly for a lot longer. You may be making a stand for your ideas, but facts are facts, and what you said is just plain incorrect! |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
14/10/2009
7:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Your lack of education on the subject matter you have chosen sticks out like a sore thumb. If you can find one passage in the Bible that tells priests to be celibate I would like to see it. Indeed, there is nothing in the new Testament to even recommend the idea of having priests, or clergy in any form at all! This was an idea that the Romans came up with some 200 years after Jesus' resurrection. |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
14/10/2009
7:57 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There are some 5,300 early Greek ma nuscripts of the New Testament. 10,000 -odd early Latin Vulgate manu scripts and at least 9,300 other early man uscripts.
We accept the writings of Homer, the Greek historian, as accurate and yet the earliest manu scripts [ of which there are 643 ] of his work date from the 13th century; and his work is the next most common after the Bible.
Scholars studying the early Biblical texts have had to search hard and long for discrepancies and have found virtually none, and the ones they found were of insignificant letters [ not whole words] that did not change the meaning of the text.
Your accusation and use of the term 'Chinese Whispers' is misleading. In truly educated circles you would have more chance of proving that the Earth is a cube!! |
|
By: jaygosh@rocketmail.com
14/10/2009
8:02 am Yahoo! Profile:
jaygosh@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Did Jesus even say was the bible says he said? Or is it said by those who would say his sayings the way they would have them said. |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
14/10/2009
8:03 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I wonder why the word 'm *** cript' is being censored? |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
14/10/2009
8:06 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
If you are actually interested in finding out the truth about Bible texts, instead of just wanting to blindly ridicule without knowledge, I would recommend the studies of Josh McDowell; you will be overwhelmed by the amount of information you have no idea exists!
Bible apologetics is a true science; not just a belief system. |
|
By: jaygosh@rocketmail.com
14/10/2009
8:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
jaygosh@rocketmail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Theres nothing scientific about getting the devils hot poker up ya. |
|
By: therockandrollerpress
14/10/2009
8:20 am Yahoo! Profile:
therockandrollerpress Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Jaygosh; the short answer would be 'yes'. The reasons I can say so are far too numerous to share here.
Like I said, the answers are out there.
One thing that sets the texts of the Bible apart is the 'seal' that exists within the verses. This seal is a numerical structure [ not to be confused with numerology, which is different ] that was not discovered until the 19th century.
The outline for this 'seal' is discussed in a small book called ' The Seal of God' written by [ I think ] F.C. Payne.
No person should criticize Biblical text without first reading about what they are criticizing. This book is one of the books one should check out.
One of the greatest living mathematicians, Eli Ripps, has also discovered other aspects of this Bible seal and published his findings in a book and movie entitled "The Bible Code". This is also different to the findings discussed in "The Seal of God".
Some see what is there to see, some refuse to look - do not listen to the ignorant. |
|
