Official Bible Interpretation Thread

By and large we are unfamiliar with our creations and are satisfied with dreams that might be. Yes we can master the creative power of mind.

Do we want to? Perhaps to avoid the miscreant use of mind called accident or the "unintended." In eternity, it matters not at all. In time, it is tragic. Best to learn to save time in bringing time to an end. In other words, if your hand is burning, take it out of the flame as soon as possible.

Death is a dream.
I don't understand your question about laughter. Laughter is produced by yes and no residing in the same instant.

 

Great answers! No time to reply right now

 

thedope:

An end in mind. How though? The convergence of heaven and earth you speak of, is the world mature enough to seek its super-substance, or do we sit still by the wayside content with the teachings of our various saviours? We can 'practice' all we like, but we end up living our lives no matter what!

lol And the haze of infancy is no more than a hangover?

Do the dead tell lies after all?!

The dying may believe you, or revile you. The grieving may even try to kill you!

If we can manage to wake up to ourselves we can't help but wake up to eachother.

Is our laughter strong enough for it?!

 

I accept that you are what you are.

 

Pretty limited god you believe in.

Why not? Translated does not have to mean, badly translated.

 

I understood him, you did not understand me. He said he is godless and I accept that he is godless, no big deal but the question is does he want to be accepted as a godless Christian or something of the sort, then the answer is no. There is no such thing as a godless Christian, without God one is not a Christian.

 

Tell me who have I "weeded out"? I merely stated the forum rules.

That's nice but these are not your forums. And what about Skip's right to use his forums any way he wishes. Are his rights not important to you?

But you are using it to promote the breaking of forum rules.

Does that go for Skip as well or does he not count to you?

 

Stay here if you wish, as long as you aren't abusive it doesn't matter to me. The only reason I even commented on the subject was that, it was being made to sound like "Christians" had made up the rules for this forum, was just pointing out that it was not "Christians" but Skip, who I don't believe is a Christian.

When did I ever ask you to leave, please show me that post. Until then please leave off the false accusations.

Yes there is discordance between us, mainly because we believe two different things but as for your questions; I do not fear them, what's to fear, in fact I find some even humorous.

 

Let's put it another way OWB. Do you accept my part in this discussion? I accept yours.

 

I believe that God has made it so that despite a misunderstanding of such matters, a person can still be reconciled with God. I don't believe in the trinity but I wouldn't call someone who does not believe in the trinity as someone other than a Christian. But there are certain criteria to being a Christian, and there are certain criteria to be reconciled with God. A Christian should believe that God had sent Jesus and that Jesus and his teachings is the only way to God. I don't see how someone who says that there are multiple ways to God and still be a Christian. Although, someone who believes such may be mislead as to what Christianity and Jesus taught, there are still many guarantees by God that they are doing Gods will. One of those is Gods promise that whoever treats their mother as precious will have eternal life; this would even include an atheist that treats their mother as precious (Such an atheist has not said in their heart that there is no God). Someone who's deeds are greater than the Pharisee's would also have a good standing with God.

But to me, it seems that whomever directly mocks Jesus' sacrifice, for instance, cannot be a Christian and is therefore outside the church. If they are outside the church, God will judge them accordingly on how they lived their lives based on an eye for an eye. And God's 'eye for an eye' is different from what we may think it is.


And the thing about the Pharisee's isn't exactly what you may think it was. The Pharisee's used God's temple as a place to earn a profit, and one of those things was to allow merchants to sell doves at exorbitant prices. These doves were meant to be cost effective sacrifices for those that were poor and couldn't afford more. They used these sacrifices to reconcile their sins to God, but the Pharisee's actions prevented them from doing this. Jesus wasn't going against these sacrifices themselves, but that the Pharisee's kept for themselves the things of God from the poor. This is one of the things that angered Jesus so much. Also, it seems that the Pharisee's did not know the law, or did, but chose to go against it. They were going against the law by their deeds and confused the public on the matters of God.

Also, I want to thank you for elaborating further on what I said about Socrates. You were able to describe it a lot more than I could.

 

The disciples from time to time were often mislead, and Jesus often corrected them. They did hear his voice and did try to understand with an open mind and heart what Jesus was teaching them. But if we disagree with Jesus without trying to reconcile this disagreement, then our relationship with Jesus and God may be harmed because we may be saying with our hearts that Jesus is not of God.

How can we disagree with the founder of Christianity, Jesus, then say we are Christians? Disagreement and struggle isn't something Jesus is against, just as long as we see it through and put faith in what Jesus has said.

Interestingly, the disciples were later called his 'little children'. "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." Mark 10:15. So to me, a disciple does not have to know all the answers, but that they should continue asking questions and reconcile with the answer they are given. Perhaps this is partly why it is called a spiritual warfare. Breaking the seals around our heart, makes it so that we can become more responsive to love and God.

 

When I say the end of time, I mean the end of transience.
Mostly we dream of life while we mechanically respond to stimuli. Not only that, we mostly live a life some one else has told us to live.

There are no reports from the dead, that is why I say death is a dream.

A single spark lights a fire. How much joy can you stand?

 

I know. The end of time in mind.

Ah the capricious casuistry of the senses! But is the intellect ever misled by even the most labyrinthine love?

If this is true, then we've been kidding ourselves and should grow up immediately.

Or perhaps so much of a reality that it is expedient to expelling the sheer thought of spectral identity.

A lifetime. I trust you're with me on that one!


thedope, I think you're the only christian that makes any sense! lol

 

I am just saying if that is your inclination, go ahead. I am not saying that you do.

I think skip is responding to his membership. I am not promoting breaking of forum rules. I am promoting civil behavior. You have a funny way of worshiping with your mouth while your heart is far away, teaching the precepts of men as though they were doctrine.

I'll let skip tell me if he is offended. If that is the case then we can settle with each other.

 

I consider love without condition. Love doesn't lead but allows for coming and going.

I agree.

Still dreaming.

You are an ancient friend.

To be fair, I asked for clarity. I don't know any thing I wasn't taught through shared being.

 

I think the disciples often misunderstood Jesus, just as he is oft misunderstood today. Misled is not the term I would use.

Are we disagreeing with Christ? The founders of "christianity" by the way, in the modern sense were Constantine and and the Nicene Council members as well as the authors of protestant reformation. Christs church was supposed to feed people not create doctrine.

Jesus said no thing about "spiritual warfare". He talked about prayer and fasting.

The thing that makes the kingdom of god accessible to little children is that they are wholly trusting, not that they are ignorant.

 

Jesus' issues with the Pharisees went far beyond dove gauging in the temple (Matthew 23). For complete accuracy, I might say that it wasn't all the Pharisees that Jesus had issues with, but mainly those of the Shammai school. Many of Jesus' teachings ar in line with those of the Hillel school, and some scholars believe Jesus was a Pharisee. (Maccoby, Jesus the Pharisee). Of course, Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramethea were good Pharisees.
[/QUOTE]

 

What's the Shammai school? And why do you say it that he went against it?

It wasn't the pharisee's that he had a gripe because he was still in support of the teaching, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you". It was just that they were making a bad example of the teachings and were teaching others their bad example.

Also, I didn't say that the Pharisee's were sacrificing doves (Edit: Oh, never mind thought you were saying they were doing to sacrificing. my bad). I was saying that they made it difficult for the poor to perform the sacrifice as to be forgiven for their sins. Instead, they were making a profit while at the same time preventing people from following the law. As Jesus said, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." They were not following the law themselves.

 

This would a piant a different picture of Jesus that I'm sure not many are willing to accept. So at that point what do we have?

A christian who is unwilling to accept who his messiah was out of fear and desire for the truth to be only what he wants it to be. And so he lives the way he always has telling himself, "no" over and over anytime his mind starts to look into these facts.

A christian who has a complete understanding of who Jesus was due to much research and is willing to accept who Jesus was because it ultimately doesn't matter.

"Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart; but now it has first to burden the heart so as afterwards to be able to lighten it. Consequently it will parish."

Duality never has a long life. It is usually the destroyer of itself.

 

From my understanding, it was the Sadducees who were the ones who condoned the dove gouging and lamb fraud (people would sell blemished lambs as unblemished). Pharisees were not a priestly group, but arose from a time when there was no temple. They arose when the Temple had been destroyed and needed a way for Hebrews to continue to be Jewish. Their ideology was that if you followed all the rules in the Scriptures, then you'd go to heaven. The Pharisees knew the law very well, but used it (as Christ saw) as barrier to people. They made the law so strict that people could barely do anything (it is called putting a fence around it so you stay far enough away from a sin just for insurance). Jesus in some ways lightened the law, but in others made it more strict (to prove a point of the need for his Saving power---this is found in the saying like if you look at a woman with lust, it is adultery).

Yes, Okie, I agree that Jesus was a Pharisee, or at least as trained somewhat in their school (he did go to synagogues right?). How much he agreed with their ideology is up for debate. The most common document we have regarding them is highly biased against them (i.e. the Gospels). People always seem to have the most issues with the people that are most similar, right?