not another religion topic!

[ahinton]

Does anyone know how many times the Bible has ben translated?

I doubt that it would even be possible to claim a particular figure as being accurate in this context; no doubt certain Biblical scholars will have a reasonably good idea, though.

On the point of many authors, that actually seems to be a strong point for the Christians, in that is is still stays together as a whole pretty well... and the fact that prophesies are fullfilled.  The Christians predict the coming of Christ on the baisis that many previous previous predictions have already happed.  The most promenient of which is Christ's life and death.  Don't start giving all this stuff about "we don't even know if he existed."  From what I see, this is one of the most solid facts in history.  Where people differ is when it comes to his resurection...

I am personally not giving you any such "stuff". Whilst there may not be absolutley incontrovertible proof of the existence of Christ, I have no doubt of it and nor do most people whether or not they are Christians. As to these prophecies, we are on shakier ground here. Unless one has absolute proof not only of what was written by whom but when it was written, it is not possible to determine with total accuracy whether text about an event is a prophecy or a report (as in it being easy to "prophecy" after the event). The Bible indeed "stays together" to some extent, but the very reservations that I mentioned - in additon to the occasional contradictory text between books and chapters in what we have of it today - nevertheless make it clear that it doesn't "stay together" as well as it might.

The resurrection story - as well as that of the virgin birth - are indeed issues of doubt among many people, including some Christians; I have written about this elsewhere recently in response to "pianistimo" so would rather not reiterate it here - it's message #321 in the "God poll" thread.

Best,

Alistair

[rach n bach]

I doubt that it would even be possible to claim a particular figure as being accurate in this context; no doubt certain Biblical scholars will have a reasonably good idea, though.

Actually, its only been translated once... look around.  I was shocked when I discoverd this, but think about it...  first it was in greek, hebrew, or arimaic (depending on where it is) and some people took it, and put it in english.  That's it.  Nothing more.  If you find hard evidance which suggests otherwise let met know.

As to these prophecies, we are on shakier ground here. Unless one has absolute proof not only of what was written by whom but when it was written, it is not possible to determine with total accuracy whether text about an event is a prophecy or a report (as in it being easy to "prophecy" after the event).

Most of the OT prophesies of Chirst's life are in Isiah, Daniel, and assorted other books.  I have found no expert who truly belives that these were written within 200 years of Christ's birth, never mind after the fact... again, let me know if you have found differently

RnB

[ahinton]

Actually, its only been translated once... look around.  I was shocked when I discoverd this, but think about it...  first it was in greek, hebrew, or arimaic (depending on where it is) and some people took it, and put it in english.  That's it.  Nothing more.  If you find hard evidance which suggests otherwise let met know.

I was not referring only to its translation into English. It has been translated into many languages. And what about the Vulgate? And, more importantly still, one of the principal issues associated with the language and translation problem is that all of the languages in which the Bible has been written and translated have metamorphosed vastly since Biblical times - as is, of course, inevitable given our long time distance from that era.

Most of the OT prophesies of Chirst's life are in Isiah, Daniel, and assorted other books.  I have found no expert who truly belives that these were written within 200 years of Christ's birth, never mind after the fact... again, let me know if you have found differently

The problem here is wider than you seem to recognise (or at least more so than you writer about, even if you can recgnise it). If OT chroniclers wrote text in the form of prophecies, what was there to stop NT chroniclers later supporting such prophecies by writing as though they had subsequently come to pass? Yes, we are most of us agreed that Christ existed, but prophecies about the coming of "the Son of God" followed by reportage of Christ as being just that does not, of itself, constitute incontrovertible proof of the series of events. Let's face it - the idea of "the coming of the Son of God" is a relatively vague concept as far as it goes, so it would surely have been easier to perpetuate it by claims that what had once been envisioned had later actually occurred. On the other hand, if, for example, a series of people in the 19th century had prophecied in writing, independently of one another, that there would be a Russian composer called Dmitry Dmitreyevich Shostakovich who would be born at some time in the future and compose 15 each of symphonies and string quartets as well as concerti and a substantial quantity of movie music, that would have been far more specific and, in reprospect, fascinating once it had become fact - but then this is a far more detailed notion than that of the future birth of "the Son of God". Sorry if anyone thinks I'm being blasphemous here - which I am not, incidentally, for I do not believe that Shostakovich WAS "the Son of God"!

For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting that Biblical text is all lies, or even fantasy - far from it; I merely observe that the way we read it today involves - and inevitably embraces - many compromises and we have to be extremely careful how much we take literally, let alone how its meaning may have changed through translation and linguistic, social, scientific, political and other developments over the past twenty centuries or so.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

According to the bible Jesus has claimed that he would return not only 'soon' but also within a generation.

According to the bible the world is 6000 years old. So when Jesus died the world was 4000 years old. So it took Jesus at least half the age of the universe to come 'soon'.

That's not soon. We now know that the universe is 13.7 billion years. If promice to learn a play a Bach fugue 'soon' and after 6.95 billion years I have not yet fulfilled my promise to learn then piece then I have not spoken the truth.


I think it is fair to say that Jesus will never return. I guess that if the bible is actually true the only conclusion can be that God somehow changed his mind. The only other alternative is that it already happened like promised 1950 years ago.

[prometheus]

Actually, its only been translated once...

The codexes we found aren't the originals. You cannot claim that God wrote the bible once, either in Arameic, greek or herbrew and then translated once into English. The original stories have been passed on in an oral tradition. This means that in every generation the story was not translated but totally 'rewritten' and retold in a new way and a new style.

But I am not an expect on bible translations. So I am sure someone can give you more details. Maybe Timothy.

[rach n bach]

I do not claim to be an expert on any of this stuff... I'm just asking about stuff I found in my research.

I must be missing something... It seems to me that the prophesies concerning Christ are pretty specific... I mean, place of birth, virgin birth, decendant of Abraham and David, death by the cross, Daniel even gave a time referance...

Again, I'm just submitting what I've found, not what I belive...

RnB

[ahinton]

I do not claim to be an expert on any of this stuff... I'm just asking about stuff I found in my research.

I must be missing something... It seems to me that the prophesies concerning Christ are pretty specific... I mean, place of birth, virgin birth, decendant of Abraham and David, death by the cross, Daniel even gave a time referance...

Again, I'm just submitting what I've found, not what I belive...

You seem to be missing part of my point here - which is that, if someone or a series of people publish a "prophesy" of an event or events and then others later publish claims that the event/s actually took place more or less as prophesied, that is of itself proof of nothing beyond what everyone concerned actually said - in other words it does not necessarily signify, let alone prove, that the event/s itself/themselves really did occur. Some of this kind of thing could therefore just as easily inhabit the realms of myth creation at one time and myth perpetuation at a later time.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

It seems to me that the prophesies concerning Christ are pretty specific...

I didn't talk about the messiah prophecy but the second comming/end of the world prophecy.

About the messiah prophecy. There are some problems with Jesus being the messiah. According to the prophecy Jesus is to be decended from David, like you said. Joseph is supposed to be decended from David. But Mary gave a virgin birth with god being the father. So Joseph wasn't the father and Jesus doesn't follow the bloodline of David.

Anyway, if you take the traiditional Jewish requirements for the comming of the messiah it is not hard to understand why Jewish people aren't christians. Same for muslims. There are some silly requirements made that will never be fulfilled anyway. For example, death will dissappear and all that have died in the past will be ressurected before the messiah's first comming.

I mean, place of birth, virgin birth, decendant of Abraham and David, death by the cross, Daniel even gave a time referance...

Virgin is a mistranslation according to many. The original word means 'young woman'. The messiah will have to be fathered by someone decended from Abraham, David, Solomon, Jesse, etc. So no virgin birth.

Yes, but he didn't forfill the prophecy. Christians claim that he will do that in the second comming, which should have come within a generation according to Jesus. But according to the bible these need to be forfilled before the messiah will come.

Again, I'm just submitting what I've found, not what I belive...

RnB

Sure, this is a theological discussion about how to interpret this mythology. At least to me it is. You don't need to be a believer of have faith for that. I like mythology.

[prometheus]

You seem to be missing part of my point here - [...]

There is also the point of a self fulfilling prophecy. For example rebuilding of the temple. If one was to do that one would be motiated by the desire for either the messiah for jewish people or the second comming for Christians. It is also the reason of the Christian pro-Israel movement. Jews will burn in hell according to them. But the Jews need to kick out the muslims and then rebuild the temple for Jesus to return.


This guy did a video on this for anyone who is interested:

[pianowelsh]

I make no apology for presenting the Biblical and only biblical view as it is relevant to the discussion and I will speak from what I know - not ignorance.   I do wonder mr Hinton how the second coming of Jesus can be only for Christians and not relevant to those of other persuasions? He says the world will be done aways with and that God shall judge the living and the dead _ thats ALL the living and all the dead - read EVERYBODY. Therefore it is an issue which concerns each of us individually. The bible also happens to be the principle source dealling with this issue in depth.  There is really no doubt over Jesus being the messiah - at his baptism God gave the very testimony of his holy spirit resting on him and he said this is my son in whom im well pleased...which clearly relates to the obedience Jesus is showing to the father in walking out the road of suffering to make atonement for sin.. To save his people (the messiah). Regarding the genealogies Jesus is related to David through both Joseph (legal/royal lineage) and Mary Biological. Regarding his diety he was concieved of the holy spirit no porblems testifying to that one..theres only one Son of God and as I mentioned God made it really clear who that was.  By the way mary said I have never known a man...To me that clearly says virgin although the origional word used is maiden...In those days maiden meant virgin they werent as promiscous in the jewish culture of her day.. Some reason like you were stoned for sleeping around etc!!

[prometheus]

You never seem to be able to address the point made. Joseph wasn't Jesus his father according to the bible.

Same for the false prophecies of Jesus.

If I interpret these things incorrectly please explain.

[pianowelsh]

I full addressed all your points. However if you want further clarification of them im more than willing to give further comments.  Joseph is considered Jesus' father in the legal sense in scripture - he was refered to as the son of Jospeh Luke 3 :23 and in chapter 2 the expression 'your father and I' is used in elation to Joseph. However we are clear that pre wedding Mary to put it crudely had not slept with a man and that as the angel testified to Mary concieved of the Holy spirit.
I believe I was clear in expressing the personage of Jesus Christ in regard to the prophecies concerning himself. If you didnt understand it may be helpfull for you to ask for clarification of specific points as I try to address each point made.

[ahinton]

I make no apology for presenting the Biblical and only biblical view as it is relevant to the discussion and I will speak from what I know - not ignorance.

Subject to the fact that you actually speak from what you believe rather than what you "know", I see no reason at all for you not to do so; to do otherwise would, after all, be dishonest and misleading.

I do wonder mr Hinton how the second coming of Jesus can be only for Christians and not relevant to those of other persuasions?

I didn't say that it would, in my view, what i suggested is that certain Christians seem to imply that it will be so, simply by "virtue" (if one could call it such) of the very fact that it is Jesus Christ, rather than any of the other prophets or rligious movement founders, who shall "come again"; now that's fine for them as far as it goes, because they are, after all, Christians - but, by implication, it means that only the founder of the Christian faith will come again. For the record, what I actually wrote was

"...what you are writing about appears to be intended to cover the entire world and the whole of mankind, yet it is written from a Christian perspective only. Let us momentarily assume that all that you predict (with particular reference to the notion of a "second coming of Christ") actually comes about; when it does so, how do you perceive that all the Muslims, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. are supposed to respond to what would effectively be tantamount to an event that would indirectly claim a kind of overall superiority for Christianity?"
and by it I meant to ask you how you believe that followers of those other religious movements should be expected to respond to the notion that such as "second coming" is open only to Christan and expected by His followers.

He says the world will be done aways with and that God shall judge the living and the dead _ thats ALL the living and all the dead - read EVERYBODY. Therefore it is an issue which concerns each of us individually. The bible also happens to be the principle source dealling with this issue in depth.

OK - but then you write

  There is really no doubt over Jesus being the messiah - at his baptism God gave the very testimony of his holy spirit resting on him and he said this is my son in whom im well pleased...which clearly relates to the obedience Jesus is showing to the father in walking out the road of suffering to make atonement for sin.. To save his people (the messiah).

So do you expect that Sikhs - or indeed Zoroastrians (whose religion is older than christianty) should simply accept without question that Jesus and his movement comes first because Jesus Himself is the only one that than come a second time (according to the Christian scriptures that you cite?).

By the way mary said I have never known a man...To me that clearly says virgin although the origional word used is maiden...In those days maiden meant virgin they werent as promiscous in the jewish culture of her day.. Some reason like you were stoned for sleeping around etc!!

Or maybe you only slept around when you were stoned? Sorry - bad joke! Ignore that. No, in an earlier post, "prometheus" already drew attention to what he and others believe is a mistranslation here - and you seem also to accept such a mistranslation as a possibility; the problem is, of course, that - as well you know - great myth and legend has been created and promoted around a literal understanding of "virgin birth" for the sole purpose of lending the birth of Jesus some kind of mystical uniqueness, which I find to be deeply suspect and, frankly, bordering on the repellent. Neither the life nor the works of Jesus Christ ever did require such cyncial PR as this, for they stand on their own two feet, just as Jesus Himself did. If we take literally that Mary had "never known a man" in the sense that this is generally understood, that's fine; all we have to do to rid ourselves of this "virgin birth" nonsense is accept this as meaning that Mary may have conceived Jesus Christ on her first time - i.e., she had never "known a man" before - i.e. she was a "maiden" before the occasion which gave rise to her conception. Easy. Case closed. But just think how easy it would have been to tweak such a claim to mean what some Christians believe it to mean (i.e. the circumstances enabling a "virgin birth")!

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

No because in saying that you deny the deity of Christ which is fundemental. thats why its in scripture, scripture being Gods word.  I am disappointed by the way you disrespectfully use the word PR. The birth of Jesus far from being a publicity stunt was in fact an extremely low key event..in case you hadnt noticed. You seem to forget that Mary's wasnt the only odd birth at the time. Elizabeth was also granted a son in exceptional circumstances.. the linking is GOD working in the lives of these two women. With God all things are possible.
Regarding the second coming Im not saying anything about sihkism or zoroastrionism as I dont care to but Jesus said 'I am the way the truth and the life Noone comes to the father except through ME' so if they know him ok. If not come judgement theres a problem...thats what scripture says.

[thalbergmad]

So do you expect that Sikhs - or indeed Zoroastrians (whose religion is older than christianty) should simply accept without question that Jesus and his movement comes first because Jesus Himself is the only one that than come a second time (according to the Christian scriptures that you cite?).

What an excellent question.

Thal

[pianowelsh]

Yes in a word because Jesus being the son of God has all authority to speak those words on behalf of God the father.  What would be the point of God sending his son to die for the sins of the world if someone else wastaking care of the sins of the rest of the floks - duh! The world means the world. Jesus didnt say im coming so that Christians can be justified in saying theyre going to heaven. He came to open the way for all people everywhere regardless of religious background to know God and have eternal life. If anyone should be offended by that it should be the jews as they were already 'the people of God' but who was it Jesus went to first but the jews and in the great comission 'to the jew first and then the gentile'.   Im sorry if it doesnt fit into the post modernist worldview but as far as God is concerned all roads do not lead to heaven. He made that very  very clear.

[ahinton]

No because in saying that you deny the deity of Christ which is fundemental. thats why its in scripture, scripture being Gods word.

The "deity of Christ" is fundamental only - or at least mostly - to Christians rather than to everyone. I am neither denying it nor claiming its incontrovertibility as you do.

I am disappointed by the way you disrespectfully use the word PR. The birth of Jesus far from being a publicity stunt was in fact an extremely low key event..in case you hadnt noticed.

That's a pity, for I think that the rationale for your disappointment is flawed. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to Jesus Christ Himself when I write this, a fact which is surely not surprising, since at the time of his birth - which was indeed a "low key event", as you rightly say - He himself could hardly have gotten the PR machine going to put the "virgin birth" myth around; this has been created and promoted by others and it is that - if anything at all here - which invites the "disrespect" that you perceive. The reason for my remark is indeed - as I stated - that the life and teachings of Christ are what they are - and they accordingly need no such marketing ploy to draw attention to them.

Regarding the second coming Im not saying anything about sihkism or zoroastrionism as I dont care to but Jesus said 'I am the way the truth and the life Noone comes to the father except through ME' so if they know him ok. If not come judgement theres a problem...thats what scripture says.

And by saying nothing about those faiths and the followers thereof you seem to duck the question - which is fine, as far as it goes, if that is what you choose to do (and it is, of course, your prerogative to do so) but, in so doing, you return the matter neatly to my remark - to which you seemed to object - that you are seeing this idea from a solely Christian perspective as something either for Christians only or for everyone but only on Christian terms.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

the deity of Christ is of personal concern to God himself and as such is of paramount importance to ALL creation.. which is the point I consistently make which you fail to recognise or respect.  These people of the so called PR machine you refer to are the prophets who were appointed by God to proclaim that a messiah would be born who would and indeed did, does and WILL save his people from their sins. Far from ducking the question Alistair I am inclined to believe I took it right on. The age or standing of a worl religion has nothing to do with what Jesus did which was to restore a way for us to have 'relationship' with him. I therefore considered it totally irrelevant to address these two of many world religions. We know anyway that in the heart of God Christ was slain before the foundations of the world... you dont get older than that - if were gonna play the 'worlds oldest..biggest etcetcetcetc' game.

[thalbergmad]

a messiah would be born who would and indeed did, does and WILL save his people from their sins. 

What about the rest of us.

I am interested what YOU think will happen to Muslims and Hindus etc when Christ comes again.

Thal

[pianowelsh]

Read the bible its very clear actually - it also goes for athiests agnostics etcetcetcetc - there is no partiality with God. He is clear there is one name under heaven by which men and women may be saved.

[prometheus]

The bible cannot be understood by someone if they don't have the holy spirit in their heart.

So I cannot understand the bible, no matter how clear it is, according to the bible.


I also don't understand how you can say this after just witnissing a significant difference of interpretation.

Jesus is supposed to be a decendent of David. If A decendent of David, in this case Joseph, adopts you then that doesn't make you decendent from David.


And the point you didn't address. The verses where Jesus prophecises that he will return 'soon', 'within a generation' and 'before you have died'

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

Here 'the kingdom of God come with power' is a clear reference to the second comming. And it will happen before some in the audience have died.
This is clearly false.

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

[...]

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."


This verse talks about the end of the world and the second comming and then Jesus tells them when it will happen.


"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Jesus here warns the High Priest that he will live to see his return.


You never said something about this. Like Pianostimo, and many many other christians, you always seem to be chanting to yourself to keep yourself in the trance of faith.

Since the dawn of Christianity people have always believed that Christ would return in their lifetime. He never did return. Even if Jesus Christ actually existed and with me accepting that I very much doubt that I would have been able to believe that Christ would return. If he truly exists then he probably changed his mind.

[pianowelsh]

OK... im about done for tonight.. But  1. Joseph didnt adopt Jesus he was with the exception of the biological link a Father to Jesus. Mary was in the line of David also and so the line IS maintained..i wont explain that again - its getting tiresome.
Regarding your other concern. I must apologise for not taking the trouble to read the Mark 9 quote you inserted only the others!!  You assrt that Christ is obviously speaking of the second coming in v1. Oddly enough several of my commentaries think there is more ambiguity in this regard. They believe He may well be refering to the transfiguration ... a miracle in itself that they were not consummed by the power of God manifested there on the mountain. Others see that this verse could be referring to the day of pentecost when the Holy spirit was given. Both are very possible.
The other verse I thought i mentioned that generation is also translated race in some manuscripts..which could in fact relate to the human race as God gave the promise after the flood that there would never be a flood that would cover the whole earth again and that the firmament/ earth would be burned up WHEN he comes again which would certainly tie in with heis second coming.

If I have somehow possibly managed to not answer your question again please forgive me but you are sometimes not as clear in the asking of the question as i need at 12 - 1am.

One thing that from the text is indisputable. He's coming back and there will be a day of reackoning ... we need to be prepared for that, coz we dont know when its going to happen.

[thalbergmad]

Read the bible its very clear actually - it also goes for athiests agnostics etcetcetcetc - there is no partiality with God. He is clear there is one name under heaven by which men and women may be saved.

You have avoided the question, I am asking what YOU think, i am not interested in what it says in the Bible.
 
So i ask you the 2nd time, what do YOU think will happen to Muslims & Hindus etc, when Christ comes again.

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so.

Thanks in advance

Thal

[prometheus]

According to the bible Christians need to answer all questions they get regarding their faith.


Pianowelsh, I al glad you have now come to see that the bible is indeed at least very ambigious on some points. Including maybe it's major point; the end of the world and the return of Christ.


Obviously the bible commentators won't add: "Here Mark attributes a clearly false prophecy to Jesus."
Do you really expect that? No, what they try to do is to explain how this apparent false prophecy can be twisted into something ambigious which they can then interpret any way they want.

What they claim is that Jesus was actually talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and just added a bit of the second comming into that. So when he then claimed it would happen within a generation they can just ignore the second comming part.


But what Jesus was probably talking about was the end of the world, including the destruction of Jerusalem, obviously, and his return.


As Pianistimo would say. God gave you three changes. Just like Peter heard the cock crow three times. In the Gospel of Mark alone three time Jesus tells you he will return within 15-25 years. Note that people didn't get that old back then. There was no science and medicine. To me 40 years seems too much. How many times in history has Jerusalem been sieged/sacked/captured/destroyed? It happens every once in a while.



Anyway, the bible clearly says that the Messiah will come when there is world peace. One more reason the Jewish people don't see Jesus as the Messiah. Christians just push all that to the second comming.


Maybe one day some people will start a new religion claiming that Jesus returned and that the original biblical prophecy will be forfilled in the third comming.
But hopefully religion will no longer be needed before this can happen.

[pianowelsh]

The bible isnt ambiguous on substance prometheus. Certain passages of which this one is considered to be particularly awkward ( I guess thats why you choose it) are open to several interpretations - none of the possibilities go out of bounds coveed in the rest of scripture. We know for example the Mark 9 passage cannot really refer to the second coming as we are still waiting for that..but then It dosen even mention the second coming in that passage..you made a tenous link to it. The possibility of the kingdom of God coming in power could be, transfiguration, pentecost OR simply the growth of the Church (as 30 years later it had spread round the known world). The other passage Mark 13.. is actually a 5 stranded argument and whilst the point you raised could be to do with the second coming - it is more likely to do with the destruction of the temple and fall of jerusalem made earlier in the passage.  You really dont read with any understanding atall prometheus.  You dont have to be a commentator to clearly appreciate that there are several things under discussin at that place in Gods word.  A more complete knowledge of scripture shows that the prophecies regarding the temple were in deed spot on and were in the lifetime of those watching on. Christians because we have hope still eagerly anticipate the return of Christ.. Not with fear as mr Hinton seems to indicate but with an assurance that we will see our Lord come in triumph to call his people to himself.

Regarding my views on what will happen to muslims etc at the second coming thal my views are totally in line with what the bible teaches on the subject ie those that trust in Christ will enter the kingdom of God. Those tha dont wont...thats why christians are proactive evangelsists

[prometheus]

They will go to hell and burn in eternal pain forever. Just like about everyone else.

Good that you claim you refuse to interpret the bible in an objective way.


Prophecies in the bible are wonderful. Either they are forfilled or we are still waiting for them. A biblical prophecy can thus never be false.

[ahinton]

Christians because we have hope still eagerly anticipate the return of Christ.. Not with fear as mr Hinton seems to indicate but with an assurance that we will see our Lord come in triumph to call his people to himself.

If you don't mind my saying so, you really ought to be more careful about accusing "prometheus" of reading without proper understanding when you have yourself read what I wrote on this subject with similar lack of understanding. I did not say - or even "seem to indicate" - that "Christians...eagerly anticipate the return of Christ...with fear"; my reference to "fear" here was in specific response to your own remarks on the fate of those who do not turn to God through Christ between now and "judgement day" and the "fear" to which I drew attention in that context was that which certain Christian fundamentalists are wont to try to spread about what will be denied to those who do not do this before "judgement day". From this, it should be clear that I did not write that Christians themselves await the return of Christ with - or in - fear.

Regarding my views on what will happen to muslims etc at the second coming thal my views are totally in line with what the bible teaches on the subject ie those that trust in Christ will enter the kingdom of God. Those tha dont wont...thats why christians are proactive evangelsists

You have now at last answered the question clearly; I had asked it of you before in more than one way more than once but, now that Thal has also asked you, you have responded without equivocation, telling us that, in your view, the "kingdom of God" is open only to those that trust in Christ; now this category may not necessarily exclude all Muslims or those of other non-Christian religious faiths (I, for example, know several Muslims who "trust in Christ" without abandoning their own faith in order to do so), but it can reasonably be expected nevertheless to exclude many devout followers of those other faiths. So - according to your answer, it would seem, with but a handful of exceptions, to be a case of "Christians in, everyone else, out".

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Thanks for expressing yourself more clearly Alistair.  I see now what you refered to interms of 'fear'. I can only respond that If you yourself had revealled to you teh desparate nature of your own condition and that of those you love in reality before God. You would stop at nothing to warn them of the wrath that is to come. Many are tragically wandering like lemings towards the edge of existence refusing to see the judgement which is to come. I hope and pray for the sake of those here that they wont wait that long. 
I had specific reason for not wanting to discuss my views on judgement earlier because I didnt feel it would be beneficial to discussion, I still dont, but I was pressed into explaining my position, though prometheus's assessment of the situation is as ever incomplete.  The worst of not accepting Christ is not eternal pain - which actually the bible says VERY little about, but the missed blessing of not having relationship with God eternally, separation from God forever.   The bible is actually quite clear on those who mix alistair Christ + idols dosnt work. Jesus said to the man at bethsaid STOP sinning and dont d=go back to what you knew before or it will be worse for you.  Im not suggesting that refers to loosing salvation but it dose indicate taht it isnt God plan for those he has redeemed.

Im glad Prometheus concurs with me that the prophecies in the bible are indeed wonderfull, though many are ahrd to understand and not all are pleasant BUT they are all good and just.  Your second sentense confuses me though Prometheus I make no such claims.. the bible is very clear, whilst some things are hard to understand.  But Christians have the Holy spirit which helps us to undertsnad the things of God and teaches us what we need to know as we spend time in the word. 

I sense in your post prometheus that you consider the bible and Christianity condems people to hell.  If you do believe this you are wrong.  Do you realise people actually condem themselves to hell for refusing to believe the testimony of Christ. Again lookin at the passage of the man at the pool of bethsaida Jesus asked the man 'do you want to be made well' - why did jesus ask that question? wasnt it obvious? through physical eyes yes it would have looked that way BUT jesus looked at the heart. The man when asked responded by blaming everyone else for stopping him being healled etc he didnt jsut say 'yes'. Jesus could see he was revelling in his self pity and bitterness he was content with winging and complaining. His heart was condeming him the illness was superficial Jesus showed that the man was healled but Jesus was clear afterwards he said stop sinning! the issue wasnt the illness it was the mans sin.  With people it isnt the symptoms or the questions that get thrown up whicha re the real problems its the sin. The same sin that stopped the old testament Isrealites from coming near to God. But through Jesus we now have a way of direct access before God but only in Christs righteousness not our own.

[prometheus]

You said that there was ambiguity in the bible after.

Oddly enough several of my commentaries think there is more ambiguity in this regard.

Or don't you agree with the commentators and accept my analysis. The only way to say Jesus is not a false prophet is to claim these verses contain ambiguity.

I sense in your post prometheus that you consider the bible and Christianity condems people to hell. If you do believe this you are wrong. Do you realise people actually condem themselves to hell for refusing to believe the testimony of Christ.

Yes, I either accept Jesus or I burn in hell for ever. It's totally my own choice. No one is forcing anything upon me. If I burn in hell it's just my own fault.


Are you nuts!!!![/size]



I don't believe in supernatural primitive superstitions because they are stupid and false and primitive and uneducated. That doesn't mean I want to burn in hell in eternal pain for eternity.

Anyway, Muslims think you will suffer 'eternal doom'. Let's say the Muslims are right. Or lets say the Mormons are right. Or the Jehovah witnesses. They all make the same treath. Join them or suffer. It's your choice, right? No blackmail involved?

If any of them are right and you are wrong it would be nice to see you in hell. Then I can ask you if you still think it's your own choice to burn in hell.


I never asked God to make a mortal body of himself and to commit suicide at the cross.

[ahinton]

Thanks for expressing yourself more clearly Alistair.

I do try...

I see now what you refered to interms of 'fear'. I can only respond that If you yourself had revealled to you teh desparate nature of your own condition and that of those you love in reality before God. You would stop at nothing to warn them of the wrath that is to come.

"Revealed to me" in what way? And if I have not had it "revealed to me", what then? Does that alone mean I'm therefore for the chop? Can I finish another piece or two first?

Many are tragically wandering like lemings towards the edge of existence refusing to see the judgement which is to come. I hope and pray for the sake of those here that they wont wait that long. I had specific reason for not wanting to discuss my views on judgement earlier because I didnt feel it would be beneficial to discussion, I still dont, but I was pressed into explaining my position,

I'm not trying to press you into discussing your views on judgement, but then I did not introduce this subject in the first place - YOU did; I merely responded to it by questioning aspects of it, as indeed I still do. You have developed, presumably of your own volition, beliefs about such ultimate judgement but you then proceed to present as though they are incontrovertibly proven truths and that all who think differently to you in such matters are not only incorrect but will also be condemned at judgement day; I see neither evidence nor need for such a belief set, so I happen not to share it.

though prometheus's assessment of the situation is as ever incomplete.

Isn't everyone's?! You indicated yourself that there are things which men and women cannot understand, etc...

The worst of not accepting Christ is not eternal pain - which actually the bible says VERY little about, but the missed blessing of not having relationship with God eternally, separation from God forever.

So you believe.

The bible is actually quite clear on those who mix alistair Christ + idols dosnt work.

Sorry - there must be some punctuation missing here; I'm not being pedantic about that for its own sake, but without it I cannot grasp what you're saying here, so could you plese just rewrite that line? Thanks.

I sense in your post prometheus that you consider the bible and Christianity condems people to hell.  If you do believe this you are wrong.  Do you realise people actually condem themselves to hell for refusing to believe the testimony of Christ.

Let's stop to remind ourselves at this point that these "people" include all the devout followers of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. - sorry, not my words, as you'll have noticed...

Again lookin at the passage of the man at the pool of bethsaida Jesus asked the man 'do you want to be made well' - why did jesus ask that question? wasnt it obvious? through physical eyes yes it would have looked that way BUT jesus looked at the heart. The man when asked responded by blaming everyone else for stopping him being healled etc he didnt jsut say 'yes'. Jesus could see he was revelling in his self pity and bitterness he was content with winging and complaining. His heart was condeming him the illness was superficial Jesus showed that the man was healled but Jesus was clear afterwards he said stop sinning! the issue wasnt the illness it was the mans sin.  With people it isnt the symptoms or the questions that get thrown up whicha re the real problems its the sin. The same sin that stopped the old testament Isrealites from coming near to God. But through Jesus we now have a way of direct access before God but only in Christs righteousness not our own.

I'm sorry - Christ the healer I can understand fine, but I just can't force the rest of the stuff to admit of logical consideration and scrutiny. Had Jesus actually come to be among us already, in our new century, do you really suppose that someone of His supreme intelligence and human sensitivity would have subscribed to the kind of overly simplistic, black-and-white views of good and evil, "sin" and the rest in utter disregard for all aspects of the human condition everywhere that He went? - and, after all, He would be able to travel the entire globe these days and introduce Himself and His teachings directly to many millions more people than was the case two millennia ago, so He would surely have absorbed as much as He could of the myriad human goodnesses and frailties that He encountered.

This is a piano forum (in case anyone's forgotten that!), so might it not be a good idea to confine the "black and white" stuff to matters specifically pianistic, where they more properly belong?!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Do you realise people actually condem themselves to hell for refusing to believe the testimony of Christ.

That is by far the most disturbing sentence i have ever read on this forum.

Thal

[prometheus]

It may actually be more disturbing that you think.

For some reason many extremist Christians can't get beyond this idea. They really believe that those that you not share their faith reject God and that it is their choice to go to hell.

They are so brainwashed they can't even see the issue as something else. These people believe actual atheists don't exist.

[thalbergmad]

They really believe that those that you not share their faith reject God and that it is their choice to go to hell.

Well, i personally do not reject God, only Jesus.

Guess i am still gonna burn, along with millions of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bhuddists etc.

This is what i hate about Christians. The fact they are so sure that they are the "chosen" ones.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, i personally do not reject God, only Jesus.

Guess i am still gonna burn, along with millions of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bhuddists etc.

This is what i hate about Christians. The fact they are so sure that they are the "chosen" ones.

Thal

As it happens, I don't actually reject either. As to whether, for how long and why I may burn (as surely I will inevitably do at some point soon in accordance with the unarguable prophesies of "pianowelsh"), I can think only of the old viola joke that runs
Q. What's the difference between a violin and a viola?
A. A viola burns longer.
I do think that the woodsmoke arising from a burning viola will be far more pleasant for those that are left than would the the stench arising from my carcass burning - but, that said, the viola playing in the CDs of my string quintet is so wonderful as to make me feel as though I am being utterly sacrilegious in even mentioning such a thing.

Anyway, has anyone ever thought about the gross "sin" that will be committed by all this burning of millions of humans not of the Christian flock, given the noxious gas and environmentally unfriendly emissions that this will generate?

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

I'm sure everyone reading this topic will be interested by this article in today's New York Times.  It is a character piece about a scientist who both writes papers about geosciences and ancient (65 million years old) species, and believes the world is no more than 10,000 years old.

Scientists have responded by saying that as long as his conclusions can withstand scientific scrutiny, they wouldn't ostracize him from the field on account of his religion.
Creationists have used his secular credentials to bolster support for their intelligent design theories.

How does this fellow himself describe his work?  He says that his religious beliefs, and scientific methods are two "paradigms" in which he works, and that even writing about species millions of years old does not mean he "endorses" those dates to be true.

Enjoy,
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Walter Ramsey

[pianowelsh]

Well atleast someone actually admitted publically they hate Christians and what they stand for ..although I think its quite clear in more of the religious posting that goes on.
Ive had quite enough of the sacriligious bible trashing that goes on here. Noone forces you to believe it...only consider it and respect that its a sincerely held belief. Many here seem incapable of doing that.  Odd really as they are the ones who ask the biblical questions.  Sorry alistair I cant be bothered to put a comma in that sentence you wanted correcting...I think the gist is still relatively clear, but I accept the punctuation as you intimated is indeed lacking.   
Prometheus I said no such thing. I said there was significant doubt that your assertion that that passage was in reference to the second coming was dubious.. Not that the bible was errant or wide open to interpretation. Surely you must see that from the general tenure of my discussions. 

Indeed this is a piano forum which one would assume is made up of a lot of wanabes because of the amount of 'hardest piece type posts' and very few teachers judging by the dearth of responses to the teaching board topics. I think it would also be fair to say that the general demographic is in favour of gnostics and athiests too from the character of religious posting.  Quite a sad looking line up really

[ahinton]

Sorry alistair I cant be bothered to put a comma in that sentence you wanted correcting...I think the gist is still relatively clear, but I accept the punctuation as you intimated is indeed lacking.

As I indicated, my purpose was not to criticise your punctuation use for the sake of it but to try to ascertain your meaning which, though evidently clear to you, remains unclear to me (perhaps because I'm just being thick) so might I ask you once again to do this? - it would only take you a couple of seconds, after all...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Noone forces you to believe

Telling non-believers they will not go to heaven could be construed as using force.

[prometheus]

I don't mind not going to heaven. Actually, I don't want to go to heaven. If both are eternal then where will one suffer the most?

Even if god existed I wouldn't want to go to heaven. After I have lived I want to die. Simple as that.

But burning in hell forever. Forever in eternal pain. No thanks. It's a threat.

[thalbergmad]

But burning in hell forever. Forever in eternal pain. No thanks. It's a threat.

Used by the church to considerable effect.

[pianistimo]

there's no eternal hell fire in the bible.  it's just called the 'second death.'  you die twice.

i don't think anyone can accuse God of anything.  unfair.  unjust.  unholy.  untruthful.  i mean - i take Him at his word.  He made me.  He can do anything He wants within reason and i think He is reasonable.  if He sent His son to die for us - He obviously values us.

rev mentions a 'lake of fire' in rev.20: 13-15 'and the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.  and death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  this is the second death, the lake of fire.  and if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.'

but, satan is a spirit being.  he cannot die - according to what i read here - because he is spirit.  that is why - in rev. 20:10 'and the devil who decieved them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet (his demons) are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.'

as i understand it - their torment will be that they cannot cross the boundary that God has set to enter His 'gates with praise.'  they don't want to be part of His kingdom.  so, they chose to be 'outcasts.' 

[thalbergmad]

Well at least someone actually admitted publically they hate Christians and what they stand for

Go back and read my sentence carefully.

I said "this is what i hate ABOUT Christians. The fact that they are so sure that they are the chosen ones".

Thal

[ahinton]

there's no eternal hell fire in the bible.  it's just called the 'second death.'  you die twice.

Ah, yes. "You Only Die Twice". I think that this must come from the King James Bond Version, n'est-ce pas?

i don't think anyone can accuse God of anything.  unfair.  unjust.  unholy.  untruthful.

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never accused God of anything; I hope that He returns the compliment, even if I have somehow "sabotaged" myself (and do please explain that one when you have a moment)...

He made me.

Poor Father Pianistimo and Mother Pianistimo - not even mentioned in the credits - not even gaffers, or best boy and girl, or the eternal "key grips"...

He can do anything He wants within reason and i think He is reasonable.  if He sent His son to die for us

Would you send your son to die for anyone and, if you did, would you consider it to have been a "reasonable" act on your part?...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

there's no eternal hell fire in the bible.  it's just called the 'second death.'  you die twice.

If you believe that then I am glad. But what you seem to describe is judaism. In Christianity and Islam you go to hell. That's what Jesus taught according to the gospels.

[timothy42b]

Go back and read my sentence carefully.

I said "this is what i hate ABOUT Christians. The fact that they are so sure that they are the chosen ones".

Thal

And we must remember that some on this forum, who object to pianowelsh's pathologically certain focus on one particular scriptural interpretation as the one and only possibility, are actually Christian.

pianowelsh may not consider them Christian.  After all, when by divine forces you are able to give the only correct explanation of scripture, assuredly you can also tell Christian from nonChristian, despite what they themselves think. 

[rob47]

the only way for this discussion to get interesting is if prometheus starts arguing for the bible and pianistimo against.

(if that is what this debate is even about)

try it and surely it will be much less hostile

[ahinton]

the only way for this discussion to get interesting is if prometheus starts arguing for the bible and pianistimo against.

(if that is what this debate is even about)

try it and surely it will be much less hostile

Interesting, perhaps. Credible, hardly. Less hostile - no, surely not!

Best,

Alistair