[Andyman_1970]

I don't follow you. It seems like you misunderstood everything I wrote.

Maybe I have................

 

[Reactor]

Define "looking down".
Looking down is a commmon turn of phrase. I surprised you don't know it. Thinking you are better/higher than other people. looking down on them from on high.

When a so called "Christian", why "so called"
Because most of them know nothing of charity, forgiveness, or most other true christian values. Most of them haven't truely accepted your god, they just pretend to as a way of terrorizing other people.


(why would I fear the Father of light? the creator? He is love manifest).
I am buddhist, I don't believe, in your god at all. As love is his manifest, you've never read the old testiment have you?

(what if their version of enlightenment has to do with child sacrifice?)
No body here believes in that right? That's totally tangental.

When I hear churlish ignorant people call them selves "Christian" and tell me I'm going to hell (you keep saying this but no one here has said that to you), I'm speaking of life experiences. You are more and more looking to fall into this category.

Jesus said "spread the word" not "jam it down their throats".(I guess you are just venting on Christians as a whole? I don't see how this fits in to this thread.)

Did you read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Changleen
So all Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, and all those other millions of people are all going to Hell?

Quote: drb, replying to changleen

Its all BS so what do you care? Right?

Quote: Ohio.
To be fair, it's pretty much implied when one starts making statements that the path to heaven means accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Counterpoint to that would be that Heath just mentioned accepting and submitted to "God," not Jesus specifically.

There are MANY though that would say accepting Jesus is necessary, but then also say you're "okay" (as in "going to heaven") as long as you believe in God. Those people don't think very hard about what they're saying.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Reactor]

Which interstingly enough Jesus never frames the Gospel in this kind of language. Also, I have a problem with the whole presentation of the Gospel in such a manner where a person could substitute "vacuum cleaner" for "Jesus" in the presentation - I'm not called to be a salesman, I'm called to be a disciple of Jesus and live my life as best I can like my rabbi and Messiah did.

You are one of the most level headed and fair people on this forum. I just wanted to complement you for your well thought out contributions.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

I was just thrown off by your post. It seemed to me out of place with the dialogue.
I hope to never fall into your"category " but I suppose that's for you to decide. As for the other comments...the old testament is full of grace, mercy, and longsuffering on the part of our Father. It's easy to generalize things we don't understand. As for the child sacrifice thing, I am sure there are some who sacrifice their children everyday to the money God and in ways too difficult to describe. It was a response to your suggestion that we can be right in our own eyes. I was just stating that there are those of us who have the same belief as you and they may have different morals but feel justified in their own minds for whatever behaviour they conduct. This is common. not a tangent.

 

[Reactor]

As for the other comments...the old testament is full of grace, mercy, and longsuffering on the part of our Father. It's easy to generalize things we don't understand.

Your comment "Our Father" could be taken as offensive, If you "Our" you yours and mine. He's not my father. As for generalizing, it's obvious you don't understand anything beyond your own sect.

As for the child sacrifice thing, I am sure there are some who sacrifice their children everyday to the money God and in ways too difficult to describe.

There are sect's of christianity that "sacrifice" their children to your god, by denying them modern medical treatment, or muslims by sending them to a madrassa.

You should understand your god is also the god of the Muslims and Jews. You are a branch of the same tree. Your branch believes Jesus was the messiah, foretold by the jews. The Jews don't buy it, neither do the muslims, although the muslims regard them as a minor prophet.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

The best lie is 99% true...

 

[Reactor]

The best lie is 99% true...

What's your point? Are you trying to pretend to be deep? That's a common tactic, and it won't work, because the people that try to pull it off are invariably the very people that shouldn't.


Here's a Buddhist Koan.

What color is a brown dog?

 

[Heath Sherratt]

As for the other comments...the old testament is full of grace, mercy, and longsuffering on the part of our Father. It's easy to generalize things we don't understand.

Your comment "Our Father" could be taken as offensive, If you "Our" you yours and mine. He's not my father. As for generalizing, it's obvious you don't understand anything beyond your own sect.

If you read the posts you would see that I was not always a Christian. I was anti-Christ for the majority of my life. It's not my sect and sects at all are non-point. Your relationship (not yours just figuritivly) with Christ is personal and shared only by the Holy Ghost with other believers. Doctrines are not relevant to your salvation nor your brotherhood with other believers.
I also studied Buddihsm to great lengths along with many of the worlds religions and practices. If you would like to start pm'ing or start another thread along the lines of "religions" or the belief in God I would be down for that.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

What I meant by the best lie is 99% true is that if the devil wants to persuade people to the other side of the fence the best way is to keep the truth intact and only err in the essentials. Not too deep.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I was just thrown off by your post. It seemed to me out of place with the dialogue.
I hope to never fall into your"category " but I suppose that's for you to decide. As for the other comments...the old testament is full of grace, mercy, and longsuffering on the part of our Father. It's easy to generalize things we don't understand. As for the child sacrifice thing, I am sure there are some who sacrifice their children everyday to the money God and in ways too difficult to describe. It was a response to your suggestion that we can be right in our own eyes. I was just stating that there are those of us who have the same belief as you and they may have different morals but feel justified in their own minds for whatever behaviour they conduct. This is common. not a tangent.

Heath, who is this post directed at, this might take a step towards mitigating the confusion of this dialogue.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

as for the color of the dog...that truly is subjective. Color is percieved by reflection of light and therefore can be percieved differently by many.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Your relationship with Christ is personal and shared only by the Holy Ghost with other believers.

Heath, I know that post was not intended for me, but you're going to have to help me with the whole "shared only by the Holy Ghost with other believers" deal - where is that coming from, chapter and verse would be helpful as well.

Thanks brotha...........

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Heath, who is this post directed at, this might take a step towards mitigating the confusion of this dialogue.

He already responded to it.

 

[Andyman_1970]

He already responded to it.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Heath, I know that post was not intended for me, but you're going to have to help me with the whole "shared only by the Holy Ghost with other believers" deal - where is that coming from, chapter and verse would be helpful as well.

Thanks brotha...........

Melchizedek. Old testament. when Abraham returns from retrieveing all that was stolen Melchizedek greets and blesses him. Melchizedek is a non-hebrew that came to the knowledge of God without direct contact like Abe. He knew Him without knowing His name. This relationship is an example as to how the church of God is made up of believers that are filled with His Spirit. Scripture also clearly explains that the church should be left for God to sort out who is who and that the believers and non should be allowed to co-exists within it's "walls". Thus meaning that those who are truly united in Christ are done so by His spirit not by going to church or by saying i am a christian.

 

[Reactor]

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes and it was insinuated I was propagating the devils lies.

 

[Reactor]

as for the color of the dog...that truly is subjective. Color is percieved by reflection of light and therefore can be percieved differently by many.

That's actually quite close. You might understand this:

You see the world through the color of your experiences and attitudes and prejudices, your interactions with other people are based on the reflections of what you put out.

If you see only through the polarized glasses of your sect Christanity, there is a lot you won't see, you'll miss much of the color of life, and more importantly you'll never really know the people you deal with. How can you have an honest interaction with people outside your sect if you feel they are all damned to hell. Your hostility, and condemnation will be reflected back.

It happens to all of us to some extent. When someone tells me they literally saw god or christ in their living room, the first thought that springs to mind is a mental health issue, the second is drugs. The third is the power of suggestion, it's there because you want to see it, people can convince themselves of many things, that there drug habbit isn't a problem, or a stain on a freeway underpass is the virgin mary.

Is there a power of prayer? Perhaps, if nothing else it can focus your mind on an objective, fill you with hope, make you feel more positive. There have been numerous studies with buddhist meditation, which show the power of the mind to change, develop compassion, and even boost the immune system.

Andyman, always a pleasure.

I have to take my leave,to attend to work. Thanks, all.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Yes and it was insinuated I was propagating the devils lies.

Read page nine. I explained what i said. It had nothing to do with you personally. You asked what i meant and I explained.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Melchizedek. Old testament. when Abraham returns from retrieving all that was stolen Melchizedek greets and blesses him.

Ok, I’m with you so far………………

Melchizedek is a non-Hebrew that came to the knowledge of God without direct contact like Abe.

With all due respect, please cite your evidence that Mel, a high priest of the Most High God, did not have direct contact with God. The book of Hebrews explains how Jesus was a high priest on the order of Melchizedek, not on the order of Aaron – thus it would seem from your interpretation, that if Jesus is from that order of priests He did not have “direct” contact with God???? (which the Bible tells us is not true) Your assertion being that Mel did not have direct contact with God like the Aaronic priests did is, with all due respect a bit of a stretch, but if you have some evidence that says otherwise, I’m all ears.

He knew Him without knowing His name.

Technically neither did Abraham. God only reveals His Name to Moses in Exodus 3, His Name being YHWH.

This relationship is an example as to how the church of God is made up of believers that are filled with His Spirit.

Heath, while I admire your passion to share your faith with others, which is commendable, your eisegesis of this passage and application to the “church” is a bit of a stretch with all due respect. The New Testament is commentary on the Old Testament, not the other way around if we are going to be historically and culturally correct with regards to context.

Scripture also clearly explains that the church should be left for God to sort out who is who and that the believers and non should be allowed to co-exists within it's "walls". Thus meaning that those who are truly united in Christ are done so by His spirit not by going to church or by saying i am a christian.

Kind of like calling yourself a car because you’re standing in a garage. I’m with you on that part.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Take care Reactor.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Actually Andy I learned extensivly about Mel from the editor of the Old testament in the Nelson Study Bible. His name is Ron and he is a director at Dallas Theological seminary and has studied the word his whole life. I have done the study myself but as with many things I have forgotten the particular scriptures and I am at work so i can not go into perfect detail until tonight. Direct contact meaning haering His voice. The aaronic priests did not even hear that regularly or if at all. Yes He does tell Abe His name and also tells moses His name is Iam also. Our Father has many names and I can clear this up for you tonight. Sorry for the wait. As for the eisegsis statement I don't follow you. What is not scriptural or culturally incorrect?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Yes He does tell Abe His name and also tells moses His name is Iam also. Our Father has many names and I can clear this up for you tonight.

For a Jew, His proper Name is YHWH – granted He is referred to with different names so one would not risk saying “The Name” inadvertently or misuse it. I wasn’t aware that Abraham was told God’s Name was YHWH.

Sorry for the wait. As for the eisegsis statement I don't follow you. What is not scriptural or culturally incorrect?

No problem, feel free to PM me as we are way off topic. I’m sure you’ve studied this extensively, but for me unless a passage can be placed in it’s Hebraic (Hebrew) context I tend to view any interpretation otherwise with suspicion. Which is why I said that the New Testament is commentary on the Old Testament – the OT was the Scriptures for those in the NT, they were Jews and thus what is recorded in the NT is what they did in response to the stuff they grew up with from the OT (if that at all made sense).

For me context is key, when we “lift” the Scriptures out of the historical, cultural, and linguistic context in which the original authors intended a “gap” of understanding is created in which man can and does insert their own fallible understanding on the Text.

I’m sure you friend is very smart regarding Christianity, and for me that’s the problem western Christianity. For centuries, the Jewish roots of Christianity have been systematically erased with false ideas like the “church” is the new Israel, or the Christian is now a the new or spiritual Jew. These ideas are birthed from such anti-Semites as Calvin and Luther. I hear so many sermons [for example] on things like Matthew 16 where Jesus says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, or loosed on earth will be loosed in Heaven” or in Mattew 5 where He says “do not think I have come to abolish the Law but fulfill it” that totally take these phrases out of context. Things like “Jesus did away with the Law” (which if He did He would have been a false Messiah) – the problem is when a Jewish rabbi (which Jesus was) says thing like I used in my example they have specific Jewish meanings which for the most part is ignored by most “mainstream” Christian scholars.

This is not to say your friend, or all Christian scholars are corrupt or false, but I certainly view with suspicion anything that denies or twists the Jewish roots of Christianity [not to say your friend has, however some of the Christian scholars in the last several hundred years IMO have missed the point].

Ok, back to my point [sorry for the rambling] you equated the comparison with Abraham and Mel as a “picture” of what the church is – for me that’s a stretch, it would be less of a stretch to say the church is a picture of Abraham and Mel, not the other way around – anyway that’s kind of nitpicky but it’s where I’m coming from. Like I said, to me the most historically and culturally (1st century of course) way to view the Text is that the NT is commentary on the OT, not a traditional Christian view, but oh well.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Hey Andy, I think we are saying many of the same things with different filters on. I agree with all of the things you have said about the contemporary church and it misunderstandings of the Word. I have been studying the Word with His help very extensively for 8 years now and by His revelation have come to know what I know. Obviously there are wiser older men that God has given me for instruction and guidance but most understanding has come directely from Him. The Hebrew roots are of course essential but the actual newtestament was written primarily in Greek and this was no accident. I have studied the greek and the aramaic texts as well as the Hebrew. They all line up but there are some surprises in there when you do some digging. As for commentary, I don't understand the connection with that word. The Old Testament was the prologue and in every word points to the coming messiah down to the colors chosen in the tabernacle, the lavre, the mercy seat, the snake, the entire scripture, even numbers (although that book just bores me as of yet). So commentary is a word I have not used to describe the New testament. Oh, and you should check into the many names of the Lord God. He has many. Alpha, Omega, The messiah, Christ, Yeshua, Yhwh, IAM, Jirah, Elohim, and they all have tremendous significance to understanding Him better. I'll try to get you those exact scriptures tonight about Mel. Elijah was another non-hebrew by the way.

 

[Heath Sherratt]

Genesis 15:2 Lord God is translated from the Hebrew word YHWH or Adonai. Also your understanding of the order of Melkizedek is lacking. He was not like Aaronic priesthood at all and there were no others but Him and Christ. I believe that when Paul talks about this order in hebrews He is making a point about the organic relationship Yeshua had with the Father.

 

[Andyman_1970]

He was not like Aaronic priesthood at all and there were no others but Him and Christ.

I alluded to that in a previous post, I agree. You and I seem to be having some sort of disconnect of understanding.

I believe that when Paul talks about this order in hebrews He is making a point about the organic relationship Yeshua had with the Father.

Paul didn't write Hebrews, although that's the typical fundamentalist Christian understanding of that, there is scant evidence to prove such...........again way off topic, but anyway. That nitpick aside, I agree with your point regarding the the relationship between Jesus and God.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Hey Andy, I think we are saying many of the same things with different filters on. I agree with all of the things you have said about the contemporary church and it misunderstandings of the Word.

If I’ve been unclear my apologies, but I agree we’ve been circling the same thing for several posts now.

………. by His revelation have come to know what I know.

I’m certainly not going to question your intentions or accuracy, but when I see the word “revelation” used in the context of understanding of interpreting the Scriptures I can’t help but have one of those TV evangelist come to mind [not that you are one mind you] – but that word “revelation” has been so misused to twist the Text to make is say whatever someone wants it to say [not that you are in this case].

but most understanding has come directly from Him.

As long as that does not contradict the Hebraic context of the Scriptures I would have no qualms considering such understanding.

The Hebrew roots are of course essential but the actual new testament was written primarily in Greek and this was no accident.

Written in Greek yes, but Jesus didn’t speak Greek – so for me Greek is very mush secondary with regards to Jesus and His ministry, which is why I’ve directed my energies towards learning Hebrew.

I have studied the greek and the aramaic texts as well as the Hebrew. They all line up but there are some surprises in there when you do some digging.

Aramaic, I’m impressed. You’ll have to PM me these “surprises”.

As for commentary, I don't understand the connection with that word. The Old Testament was the prologue and in every word points to the coming messiah down to …………….. So commentary is a word I have not used to describe the New testament.

Here’s where I’m coming from when I use the word “commentary”. Everything Jesus says and teaches is commentary on the OT and the Torah. The OT and the Torah were the Scriptures for Jesus, as a rabbi with S’mikah (authority) He had them memorized. Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion, which is a misunderstanding many Christians make, and there is no Biblical basis for.

The OT were the Scriptures for Paul, John, Peter, John the Baptist, Luke (converted Jew), so everything they write is in the context of the OT as God’s authoritative Word, they did not have the New Testament as it was not canonized until the 300’s AD. With this understanding, any idea, revelation or Christian doctrine I come across, if it cannot be substantiated in the OT, for me it is false. An example would be the reformed theology doctrine that the church replaces Israel.

Oh, and you should check into the many names of the Lord God. He has many. Alpha, Omega, The messiah, Christ, Yeshua, Yhwh, IAM, Jirah, Elohim, and they all have tremendous significance to understanding Him better. I'll try to get you those exact scriptures tonight about Mel. Elijah was another non-hebrew by the way.

Thank you for the suggestion to study God’s Name, I’ve been spending some time with a local rabbi studying Hebrew, and about YHWH and His Name.

The only Name the Jews would not say out loud, was the Name YHWH, while those other words are shall we say “nicknames” to refer to YHWH, so as not to accidentally say the Name YHWH, and possibly misuse that Name. Again, while I agree with you that Yeshua is YHWH, to say that Yeshua is a Name of God is a bit of a Christianization – it means YHWH saves, but YHWH Himself (in the OT) is not referred to as Yeshua. This would be another example of an idea that although is in the NT, and correct in the context of referring to Jesus, cannot be substantiated in the OT with reference to the proper Name of YHWH.

Thanks I got the PM.

How is Elijah being a non-Hebrew (I’ll have to check that) pertinent to our conversation?

Anyway, my apologies to the other monkeys for this drawn out theological discussion.