100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: OK - LETS TRY THIS AGAIN | |
|---|---|
|
|
  {b]I don't judge never have....but time after time I am accused of just that. Or it is without warrant brought to my attention that it is a "religious forms not a Christian forum" why is that.... I also find it rather interesting that all the people that were Christians, and who fell away....did so because of selfish reasons...or that God didn't do things on their terms....I say this also alot...why is it that when peoples lives are all hunky dory that they don't thank God, but when life is hell or hard they blame God first... And exactly in your opinion tribo what are my true colors....how do you people think you know all of who I am in such a short time. None of you COULD EVER be a threat to me in any way, shape or form. Again if your going to ask a Christian aa question then expect to get a Christian answer, I would like one of you to prove at anytime where I have "sucked people into my way of thinking. Look at it this way, you come in and say what you want....and I come in and say what I want. I leave it up to the good people of JSH to take the information and do as they see fit. I have never once told anyone to believe me or die...... When I said aplogies were not needed.....I meant what I said....and said what I meant....and you can turn around and throw that in my face......wow About "judging" others... it's not judgment..it's warning people against the consequence of sin & believing lies & not following God's word. It's not personal to me. I don't hate that person for what they do. You're right on point about those who fell away... I need not say more on that subject. It's been my point all along. BRAVO! I can't be threatened by the attacks or name calling either. I try to answer things as led by God to answer them. It's for the benenfit of those who are seeking. Let lurkers decide for themselves. The word of God can be lived by & defended against lies & heresies. Correctly said...expect a Christian answer. I don't play in other people's ball park. We expect that some will rage against God's word & His children for speaking the truth but we still know what we believe in. What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim? Coming from someone who's a pagan & doesn't have the truth in him I find this too funny. You are doing EXACTLY what you say I am doing...and also in the name of god...small g that is. Hypocrite! Do all the raging you must if that satisfies you.  I find that just so funny... LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{b]I don't judge never have....but time after time I am accused of just that. Or it is without warrant brought to my attention that it is a "religious forms not a Christian forum" why is that.... I also find it rather interesting that all the people that were Christians, and who fell away....did so because of selfish reasons...or that God didn't do things on their terms....I say this also alot...why is it that when peoples lives are all hunky dory that they don't thank God, but when life is hell or hard they blame God first... And exactly in your opinion tribo what are my true colors....how do you people think you know all of who I am in such a short time. None of you COULD EVER be a threat to me in any way, shape or form. Again if your going to ask a Christian aa question then expect to get a Christian answer, I would like one of you to prove at anytime where I have "sucked people into my way of thinking. Look at it this way, you come in and say what you want....and I come in and say what I want. I leave it up to the good people of JSH to take the information and do as they see fit. I have never once told anyone to believe me or die...... When I said aplogies were not needed.....I meant what I said....and said what I meant....and you can turn around and throw that in my face......wow About "judging" others... it's not judgment..it's warning people against the consequence of sin & believing lies & not following God's word. It's not personal to me. I don't hate that person for what they do. You're right on point about those who fell away... I need not say more on that subject. It's been my point all along. BRAVO! I can't be threatened by the attacks or name calling either. I try to answer things as led by God to answer them. It's for the benenfit of those who are seeking. Let lurkers decide for themselves. The word of God can be lived by & defended against lies & heresies. Correctly said...expect a Christian answer. I don't play in other people's ball park. We expect that some will rage against God's word & His children for speaking the truth but we still know what we believe in. The only problem is that this is a behavior set that opposes the teachings of Christ. How can one warn others about following Christ when they themselves refuse to? Discussing ideas and concepts is the purpose of a discussion about religion. Labeling belief is a easier way to communicate concepts. The problem with Anti Christ christians (people who claim to be christians and attack anyone not believed to be christians) is that they are actually using Christ as a weapon claiming they are superior to others, that they are right, and others are wrong. This by the teachings of almost all religions is bad. If someone wants to be a Christian I'm all for it. I just have a problem with people who won't accept Christ in their hearts or minds going around telling everyone else they are wrong and need to love Jesus and that he is the way to salvation. If you don't pay attention to the teachings of Christ how can you actually call yourself a Christian? The sad truth here is that I am guilty of bad behavior on this Forum. I set a trap for you because I am a pagan, and I do follow the teachings of Christ. He taught many things that were worth paying attention to. I believe his lessons and the honoring of his lessons are much more important than claims to uphold him. If one believes anything good about him is he served better by honoring his lessons, or by proclaiming he is everything while ignoring his teachings? What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim? hi BB - i cant say i follow christ teaching's for i know not for sure they are "christ" teaching's - but i do believe they have good moral foundations if one want's to follow them - in that sense i agree with what you state.Many other religious beliefs before and after have moral beliefs also quite in tune wth the teaching's of the new testament. morals were around long before most religion's exsisted. it was just a code all thought well of accepting and respecting each other.And i presume - that if they were broken there were penalties to pay just as in later religions. laws are laws no matter what religious confines you put them within. the old proverbial- for every action there is a re action What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim you make your point very plain - so i feel no need to answer that directly - indirectly though - i think it's neither. the morals if followed, are the guide - not who may or may have not been the teacher. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Wed 06/11/08 01:05 PM
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian. Wrong. He was a Darwiniest and heavily immersed in New Age Philosophy. About Darwin...Darwin tested the Bible & found it to be true. He became a Christian & denounced his theories of evolution... Can you imagine that? People still hang on evolution it like it was true???? The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ?holy fabrication!? It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Hi KarmaFury ... Thank you for that link...I read most of it, and it does appear as you say , that Darwin did not recant... oh, well, it doesn't change the way i believe in any way interestingly enough, though.... the very last part of the link  that you sent about Darwin, reads... Conclusion Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever." Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did. ONLY GOD KNOWS what transpired in the heart of Darwin in his last days....or even in his last breath. GOD ALONE KNOWS!!. NOT man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian. Wrong. He was a Darwiniest and heavily immersed in New Age Philosophy. About Darwin...Darwin tested the Bible & found it to be true. He became a Christian & denounced his theories of evolution... Can you imagine that? People still hang on evolution it like it was true???? The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ?holy fabrication!? It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Hi KarmaFury ... Thank you for that link...I read most of it, and it does appear as you say , that Darwin did not recant... oh, well, it doesn't change the way i believe in any way interestingly enough, though.... the very last part of the link that you sent about Darwin, reads... Conclusion Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever." Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did. ONLY GOD KNOWS what transpired in the heart of Darwin in his last days....or even in his last breath. GOD ALONE KNOWS!!. NOT man. your god or my god MS -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian. Wrong. He was a Darwiniest and heavily immersed in New Age Philosophy. About Darwin...Darwin tested the Bible & found it to be true. He became a Christian & denounced his theories of evolution... Can you imagine that? People still hang on evolution it like it was true???? The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ?holy fabrication!? It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Hi KarmaFury ... Thank you for that link...I read most of it, and it does appear as you say , that Darwin did not recant... oh, well, it doesn't change the way i believe in any way interestingly enough, though.... the very last part of the link that you sent about Darwin, reads... Conclusion Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever." Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did. ONLY GOD KNOWS what transpired in the heart of Darwin in his last days....or even in his last breath. GOD ALONE KNOWS!!. NOT man. Did you even bother with the link given. His family was with him!! His wife would have been more than happy to announce a change of heart. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Milesoftheusa
on
Wed 06/11/08 02:41 PM
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian.
Hitler was a Luthern. The country was luthern. If you want to see hitlers book to Wipe out the Jews and Why. Just do a search for. "Martin Luther The Lie" a book he wrote about the Jew Devil..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rapunzel
on
Wed 06/11/08 02:45 PM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbirjVeI_Pk&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj-4t9drUlM Across The Universe (Lennon/McCartney)  Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup They slither wildly as they slip away across the universe Pools of sorrow, waves of joy  are drifting through my open mind Possessing and caressing me  Jai Guru Deva OM Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes They call me on and on across the universe Thoughts meander t: like a restless wind inside a letter box They tumble blindly as they make their way across the universe Jai Guru Deva OM Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Sounds of laughter shades of live are ringing through my open ears Inciting and inviting me Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns It calls me on and on, across the universe Jai Guru Deva OM Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Nothing's gonna change my world Jai Guru Deva Jai Guru Deva Jai Guru Deva Jai Guru Deva Jai Guru Deva (fade out) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jai Guru Deva OM (Translation: "I give thanks (victory) (salutation) to Guru Dev (or heavenly teacher), om". Om being the sound of the vibration of the universe.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim? Coming from someone who's a pagan & doesn't have the truth in him I find this too funny. You are doing EXACTLY what you say I am doing...and also in the name of god...small g that is. Hypocrite! Do all the raging you must if that satisfies you. I find that just so funny... LOL FYI Pagan as a word used in the modern world is simply an umbrella term to describe the spiritual systems and faiths of many religions. It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. Modern use of the word Pagan generally refers to religions that are based more on nature or ancient customs. The term Neo-pagan is actually much more accurate. Before you think all pagans are evil you may want to understand the difference between what you think a pagan is, and what a actual pagan is. The very word Pagan derives from the term "country folk) which failed to describe a religion but actually described a class of people. This included people that followed ancient ways (most of those found in remote areas when the term was originally used) and was in essense the common folk. Rather than rely on miracles or society these groups had their own spiritual leaders and healers that would use herbalism or ancient rites to heal people or observe spirituality. So far as passage about pagans there is relatively little in the bible and if the word pagan is considered in it's ancient form it clearly refers to local pagans. Now the KJV of the Bible does state though shalt not suffer a WITCH to live, and the SEV states Sorceress. Now these terms actually originate rather than their commonly used forms in reffering to someone who uses the power gained from assistance or control of Evil spirits. Note here that even then the term sorceress is restricted for some reason to women which is something to wonder about within itself. This is the source of misconceptions about bible verses regarding pagans and only refers to women. If you have doubts or want to think it's my personal tripe look it up. If you re read your posts after reading the third link which is the definition of the noun devil it becomes even more interesting. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorceress http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorcery http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devil In spite of it's modern use the word devil as used in ancient form derives from per Merriam-webster from :"Etymology: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up" While we all know what devil means when used by someone following the christian definition of Devil, in reality the word has roots in slander or deflamation of character which is more or less what you have been doing speaking against pagans. The connection used in your posts between Pagans and devil worshipers within itself is one that I personally have always considered a simple lack of desire to understand one's own religion. It is I believe a christian urban legend passed down throughout generations without actually having any origin in the bible texts. If you have any actual passages from the bible eluding to this I'm somewhat curious because if used in ancient form of the understanding of the word pagan it would be a proclaimation that all country folk were evil devil worshipers. So far as being Pagan and not having any truth in me Christianity in it's modern form which is practiced is more pagan than you might think. Eastre was a pagan goddess. Easter is a pagan fertility rite celebrating rebirth. It was a celebration of the fertility of the people, and of the land during a time of planting. The rabbit or hare (which is well known for fast reproduction) hides eggs (another symbol of fertility) and people find them. Finding the egg is symbolic of fertility, and the hunt of eggs by children was so that they would have fertil lives. Many cultures that have been discovered, found, or interacted with by the general populace of what was then considered the entire human race have or had what are now reffered to as pagan belief systems. Pagan basically is generally used to refer to a minority religion (relatively speaking) that has it's roots or uses concepts similar to that of pre-christian or non christian belief systems. Many pagan paths are very similar to Christianity in it's true form with slight differences or names. The concepts are very alike much like different Christian denominations while being completely distinct. In truth most modern pagans rather than being true pagans as one might understand the concept without familiarity are actually neo-pagan meaning concepts are borrowed from ancient and modern societies and blended together in an attempt to have a more complete understanding. By the definitions of the times Jesus was executed basically for heresy and performing non hebrew cermony and in that way has more in common with non-christians over the course of centuries than his own followers. The concept of Convert or kill (conceptually, physically, or socially) is non-christian in origin and was actually a muslim concept introduced to the populace by Muslim invasions in the ancient world. This is the most modern religion that one can find this behavior set in. The roots of this practice actually are found within ancient pre-christian and quite probably pre-hebrew belief systems. In the Ancient pagan world where each city had it's own god societies would war against each other in the name of their god being more or all powerful. The winning culture was considered to have the most powerful god (or set of gods) by ancient peoples in many cases. All of this was taught as ancient history in grade school, high school, and college. It's common knowledge if one studies history and the discussion of theology is left out of this because it is simply known and documented history of the world. This is an ancient behavior pattern I personally view as barbaric that many modern peoples have never transcended. It involved what I view as cultural genocide leading people to seek to destroy all spiritual belief or culture other than their own. When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists. The difference is that Jesus was indeed regardless of his divine origin or lack of divine religion by bloodline royalty. He was well edjucated and very popular by a sector of the Jewish people because his was considred by many to be the correct ruling dynasty or family of the Jews rather than Herod who had unsurped his bloodline. Much of this information was included in the bible if one reads carefully. Part is put openly in the texts, and other parts were written in the form of code because during the lifetime of Jesus anyone speaking against the currently empowered Herod was likely to be executed quickly. What is not clear can easily be found in alternate texts about the times that Jesus lived in not included in the bible. This is how he was known as the king of the Jews because at his time there was a contraversy concerning his royal bloodline. Although many in the modern world see this as a joke by the romans I have read quite a bit outside of the bible that plainly states this was a non spiritual political debate. It is well mentioned in the bible in plain text for any that read the story of Bethleham. Some of the concepts Jesus taught were secret lessons within the Jewish culture forbiden to be shared with non-Jews per some Jewish sources. The fact that many of Jesus's lessons taught paralleled Buhdist teachings of the time is probably more than coincidence. Quickstepper I would ask that you give up the name calling, and explain exactly what your beliefs are regarding all of this or allow the rest of us to return to religion discussion which has repeatedly been interupted by all of this. Many of us have been trying to discuss concepts concerning religion while respecting each other's views. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Blackbird
on
Wed 06/11/08 03:06 PM
|
|
What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim? Coming from someone who's a pagan & doesn't have the truth in him I find this too funny. You are doing EXACTLY what you say I am doing...and also in the name of god...small g that is. Hypocrite! Do all the raging you must if that satisfies you. I find that just so funny... LOL FYI Pagan as a word used in the modern world is simply an umbrella term to describe the spiritual systems and faiths of many religions. It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. Modern use of the word Pagan generally refers to religions that are based more on nature or ancient customs. The term Neo-pagan is actually much more accurate. Before you think all pagans are evil you may want to understand the difference between what you think a pagan is, and what a actual pagan is. The very word Pagan derives from the term "country folk) which failed to describe a religion but actually described a class of people. This included people that followed ancient ways (most of those found in remote areas when the term was originally used) and was in essense the common folk. Rather than rely on miracles or society these groups had their own spiritual leaders and healers that would use herbalism or ancient rites to heal people or observe spirituality. So far as passage about pagans there is relatively little in the bible and if the word pagan is considered in it's ancient form it clearly refers to local pagans. Now the KJV of the Bible does state though shalt not suffer a WITCH to live, and the SEV states Sorceress. Now these terms actually originate rather than their commonly used forms in reffering to someone who uses the power gained from assistance or control of Evil spirits. Note here that even then the term sorceress is restricted for some reason to women which is something to wonder about within itself. This is the source of misconceptions about bible verses regarding pagans and only refers to women. If you have doubts or want to think it's my personal tripe look it up. If you re read your posts after reading the third link which is the definition of the noun devil it becomes even more interesting. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorceress http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorcery http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devil In spite of it's modern use the word devil as used in ancient form derives from per Merriam-webster from :"Etymology: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up" While we all know what devil means when used by someone following the christian definition of Devil, in reality the word has roots in slander or deflamation of character which is more or less what you have been doing speaking against pagans. The connection used in your posts between Pagans and devil worshipers within itself is one that I personally have always considered a simple lack of desire to understand one's own religion. It is I believe a christian urban legend passed down throughout generations without actually having any origin in the bible texts. If you have any actual passages from the bible eluding to this I'm somewhat curious because if used in ancient form of the understanding of the word pagan it would be a proclaimation that all country folk were evil devil worshipers. So far as being Pagan and not having any truth in me Christianity in it's modern form which is practiced is more pagan than you might think. Eastre was a pagan goddess. Easter is a pagan fertility rite celebrating rebirth. It was a celebration of the fertility of the people, and of the land during a time of planting. The rabbit or hare (which is well known for fast reproduction) hides eggs (another symbol of fertility) and people find them. Finding the egg is symbolic of fertility, and the hunt of eggs by children was so that they would have fertil lives. Many cultures that have been discovered, found, or interacted with by the general populace of what was then considered the entire human race have or had what are now reffered to as pagan belief systems. Pagan basically is generally used to refer to a minority religion (relatively speaking) that has it's roots or uses concepts similar to that of pre-christian or non christian belief systems. Many pagan paths are very similar to Christianity in it's true form with slight differences or names. The concepts are very alike much like different Christian denominations while being completely distinct. In truth most modern pagans rather than being true pagans as one might understand the concept without familiarity are actually neo-pagan meaning concepts are borrowed from ancient and modern societies and blended together in an attempt to have a more complete understanding. By the definitions of the times Jesus was executed basically for heresy and performing non hebrew cermony and in that way has more in common with non-christians over the course of centuries than his own followers. The concept of Convert or kill (conceptually, physically, or socially) is non-christian in origin and was actually a muslim concept introduced to the populace by Muslim invasions in the ancient world. This is the most modern religion that one can find this behavior set in. The roots of this practice actually are found within ancient pre-christian and quite probably pre-hebrew belief systems. In the Ancient polytheistic world where each city had it's own god societies would war against each other in the name of their god being more or all powerful. The winning culture was considered to have the most powerful god (or set of gods) by ancient peoples in many cases. All of this was taught as ancient history in grade school, high school, and college. It's common knowledge if one studies history and the discussion of theology is left out of this because it is simply known and documented history of the world. This is an ancient behavior pattern I personally view as barbaric that many modern peoples have never transcended. It involved what I view as cultural genocide leading people to seek to destroy all spiritual belief or culture other than their own. When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists. The difference is that Jesus was indeed regardless of his divine origin or lack of divine religion by bloodline royalty. He was well edjucated and very popular by a sector of the Jewish people because his was considred by many to be the correct ruling dynasty or family of the Jews rather than Herod who had unsurped his bloodline. Much of this information was included in the bible if one reads carefully. Part is put openly in the texts, and other parts were written in the form of code because during the lifetime of Jesus anyone speaking against the currently empowered Herod was likely to be executed quickly. What is not clear can easily be found in alternate texts about the times that Jesus lived in not included in the bible. This is how he was known as the king of the Jews because at his time there was a contraversy concerning his royal bloodline. Although many in the modern world see this as a joke by the romans I have read quite a bit outside of the bible that plainly states this was a non spiritual political debate. It is well mentioned in the bible in plain text for any that read the story of Bethleham. Some of the concepts Jesus taught were secret lessons within the Jewish culture forbiden to be shared with non-Jews per some Jewish sources. The fact that many of Jesus's lessons taught paralleled Buhdist teachings of the time is probably more than coincidence. Quickstepper I would ask that you give up the name calling, and explain exactly what your beliefs are regarding all of this or allow the rest of us to return to religion discussion which has repeatedly been interupted by all of this. Many of us have been trying to discuss concepts concerning religion while respecting each other's views. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim? Coming from someone who's a pagan & doesn't have the truth in him I find this too funny. You are doing EXACTLY what you say I am doing...and also in the name of god...small g that is. Hypocrite! Do all the raging you must if that satisfies you. I find that just so funny... LOL FYI Pagan as a word used in the modern world is simply an umbrella term to describe the spiritual systems and faiths of many religions. It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. Modern use of the word Pagan generally refers to religions that are based more on nature or ancient customs. The term Neo-pagan is actually much more accurate. Before you think all pagans are evil you may want to understand the difference between what you think a pagan is, and what a actual pagan is. The very word Pagan derives from the term "country folk) which failed to describe a religion but actually described a class of people. This included people that followed ancient ways (most of those found in remote areas when the term was originally used) and was in essense the common folk. Rather than rely on miracles or society these groups had their own spiritual leaders and healers that would use herbalism or ancient rites to heal people or observe spirituality. So far as passage about pagans there is relatively little in the bible and if the word pagan is considered in it's ancient form it clearly refers to local pagans. Now the KJV of the Bible does state though shalt not suffer a WITCH to live, and the SEV states Sorceress. Now these terms actually originate rather than their commonly used forms in reffering to someone who uses the power gained from assistance or control of Evil spirits. Note here that even then the term sorceress is restricted for some reason to women which is something to wonder about within itself. This is the source of misconceptions about bible verses regarding pagans and only refers to women. If you have doubts or want to think it's my personal tripe look it up. If you re read your posts after reading the third link which is the definition of the noun devil it becomes even more interesting. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorceress http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorcery http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devil In spite of it's modern use the word devil as used in ancient form derives from per Merriam-webster from :"Etymology: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up" While we all know what devil means when used by someone following the christian definition of Devil, in reality the word has roots in slander or deflamation of character which is more or less what you have been doing speaking against pagans. The connection used in your posts between Pagans and devil worshipers within itself is one that I personally have always considered a simple lack of desire to understand one's own religion. It is I believe a christian urban legend passed down throughout generations without actually having any origin in the bible texts. If you have any actual passages from the bible eluding to this I'm somewhat curious because if used in ancient form of the understanding of the word pagan it would be a proclaimation that all country folk were evil devil worshipers. So far as being Pagan and not having any truth in me Christianity in it's modern form which is practiced is more pagan than you might think. Eastre was a pagan goddess. Easter is a pagan fertility rite celebrating rebirth. It was a celebration of the fertility of the people, and of the land during a time of planting. The rabbit or hare (which is well known for fast reproduction) hides eggs (another symbol of fertility) and people find them. Finding the egg is symbolic of fertility, and the hunt of eggs by children was so that they would have fertil lives. Many cultures that have been discovered, found, or interacted with by the general populace of what was then considered the entire human race have or had what are now reffered to as pagan belief systems. Pagan basically is generally used to refer to a minority religion (relatively speaking) that has it's roots or uses concepts similar to that of pre-christian or non christian belief systems. Many pagan paths are very similar to Christianity in it's true form with slight differences or names. The concepts are very alike much like different Christian denominations while being completely distinct. In truth most modern pagans rather than being true pagans as one might understand the concept without familiarity are actually neo-pagan meaning concepts are borrowed from ancient and modern societies and blended together in an attempt to have a more complete understanding. By the definitions of the times Jesus was executed basically for heresy and performing non hebrew cermony and in that way has more in common with non-christians over the course of centuries than his own followers. The concept of Convert or kill (conceptually, physically, or socially) is non-christian in origin and was actually a muslim concept introduced to the populace by Muslim invasions in the ancient world. This is the most modern religion that one can find this behavior set in. The roots of this practice actually are found within ancient pre-christian and quite probably pre-hebrew belief systems. In the Ancient polytheistic world where each city had it's own god societies would war against each other in the name of their god being more or all powerful. The winning culture was considered to have the most powerful god (or set of gods) by ancient peoples in many cases. All of this was taught as ancient history in grade school, high school, and college. It's common knowledge if one studies history and the discussion of theology is left out of this because it is simply known and documented history of the world. This is an ancient behavior pattern I personally view as barbaric that many modern peoples have never transcended. It involved what I view as cultural genocide leading people to seek to destroy all spiritual belief or culture other than their own. When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists. The difference is that Jesus was indeed regardless of his divine origin or lack of divine religion by bloodline royalty. He was well edjucated and very popular by a sector of the Jewish people because his was considred by many to be the correct ruling dynasty or family of the Jews rather than Herod who had unsurped his bloodline. Much of this information was included in the bible if one reads carefully. Part is put openly in the texts, and other parts were written in the form of code because during the lifetime of Jesus anyone speaking against the currently empowered Herod was likely to be executed quickly. What is not clear can easily be found in alternate texts about the times that Jesus lived in not included in the bible. This is how he was known as the king of the Jews because at his time there was a contraversy concerning his royal bloodline. Although many in the modern world see this as a joke by the romans I have read quite a bit outside of the bible that plainly states this was a non spiritual political debate. It is well mentioned in the bible in plain text for any that read the story of Bethleham. Some of the concepts Jesus taught were secret lessons within the Jewish culture forbiden to be shared with non-Jews per some Jewish sources. The fact that many of Jesus's lessons taught paralleled Buhdist teachings of the time is probably more than coincidence. Quickstepper I would ask that you give up the name calling, and explain exactly what your beliefs are regarding all of this or allow the rest of us to return to religion discussion which has repeatedly been interupted by all of this. Many of us have been trying to discuss concepts concerning religion while respecting each other's views. Wow! That was an amazing post and I just wanted to thank you for sharing that. I just hope that your time and effort towards the person you were directing it too is not wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rapunzel
on
Wed 06/11/08 03:45 PM
|
|
Jai Guru Deva OM (Translation: "I give thanks (victory) (salutation) to Guru Dev (or heavenly teacher), om". Om being the sound of the vibration of the universe.) Ohhhh,. thank you so much... that is absolutely beautiful... it reminds me of zithers & ashrams... After i went to Woodstock and other festivals, having grown up in New England i decided i wanted to travel, soooo i once went to a yoga seminar in 1971 with Yogi Bhajan & Company ( i forget exactly how to spell it } I paid $100.00 for prearranged admission hitchhiked from Connecticut ~ at age 17 and arrived finally ~ after many adventures in the gorgeous mountains of Colorado I liked Durango ~ a high-country town  all surrounded by beautiful tall mountains and i loved the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Forest I had many wonderful adventures that summer in the mountains & valleys of Colorado and across the entire United States Of America I thank Our Beloved Vietnam Soldiers For Protecting MY Freedom while i tripped < practically fancy ~ free > around the Country |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where do you get that these statements of yours r true?
. It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists. Now Yahshua himself said he brought nothing new. Either you do not understand the writings of the nt or this is a copy and paste. these 2 at least statements are absolutely false and should be seen as such. please prove what you have posted..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Wed 06/11/08 03:37 PM
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian. Wrong. He was a Darwiniest and heavily immersed in New Age Philosophy. About Darwin...Darwin tested the Bible & found it to be true. He became a Christian & denounced his theories of evolution... Can you imagine that? People still hang on evolution it like it was true???? The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ?holy fabrication!? It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Hi KarmaFury ... Thank you for that link...I read most of it, and it does appear as you say , that Darwin did not recant... oh, well, it doesn't change the way i believe in any way interestingly enough, though.... the very last part of the link that you sent about Darwin, reads... Conclusion Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever." Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did. ONLY GOD KNOWS what transpired in the heart of Darwin in his last days....or even in his last breath. GOD ALONE KNOWS!!. NOT man. your god or my god MS - There is Only ONE GOD, Tribo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where do you get that these statements of yours r true? . It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists. Now Yahshua himself said he brought nothing new. Either you do not understand the writings of the nt or this is a copy and paste. these 2 at least statements are absolutely false and should be seen as such. please prove what you have posted..Miles Since your response seems geniuine and only responds to a small section of statements although I am unsure what you mean I will attempt to clarify. " It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. " What I mean when I say this, is that in the time that the bible was written and bound the known world was of limited size. As many parts of the world were still undiscovered the ancient populace viewed the world as flat. This had nothing to do with religion itself it simply eluded to human kind's perception of the world they existed on. When any ancient used a term of any kind it was restricted to the world that they understood. Since many cultures that are by modern people considered pagan by modern use of the word, they would be unknown by anyone who had anything to do with writting the bible by the fact that the places and peoples were not even known to exist. A Native American belief system, Latin American belief system, or pacific island belief system would be unknown to the people in the time that the bible was written because per their knowledge the places simply failed to exist. Confirmation that the world was round and largescale knowledge that there was another inhabited major continent only began during the end of the 1400s. Because of this any statements if they even existed about Pagans would be restricted to known pagans. If the purpose of many passages (to address the audience which would be relatively local) is considered if the term pagan, or any other term was used it would be used with local revelance disregarding the unknown. Even if the very well educated knew more than the populace writings of the time were writen assuming the comprehention of the target audience rather than a modern person. During the time of Jesus the old Testiment was heralded. It was a collection of books, letters, and passages that were at that time the historical teachings (some spiritual some practical) of a local people in a geographical area disregarding the teachings of the rest of the world. Wether the concepts Christ taught were original or not they deviated from these ancient texts and included concepts that were embraced by other cultures that were decidedly not local such as concepts from the Far East. Because the parallelism there has been a long debate whether Jesus actually spontaniously came up with these ideas through divine comprehension or learned them from those that followed Eastern philosophy. It is known that from birth Jesus had visitors from other cultures that may or may not have influenced his views. Without really going into this debate when I said that he embraced many concepts rejected by the old testiment I mean that the concepts that he introduced mirrored what was then "global" thought rather than local thought. Whether they were original or not the concepts he taught were new to most of the target audience of his time. This means that during the time of his life he was indeed a revolutionary in the spiritual context. This says nothing about his teachings really, but speaks of what he was to the world he lived in during the time of his life. What I said here had little to do with the NT or OT but had to do rather with the obvious differences between them conceptually. What I said about Christ himself and his teachings being a modern thinker of the time I meant as a statement that he was thinking outside of the box for his local geographical area at that time. Personally I think he was probably extremely intelligent and had to be to pull off many of his explainations but this is only opinion. If I failed here to answer your query I apologize, simply clarify what it is you have problems understanding or disagree with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian. Wrong. He was a Darwiniest and heavily immersed in New Age Philosophy. About Darwin...Darwin tested the Bible & found it to be true. He became a Christian & denounced his theories of evolution... Can you imagine that? People still hang on evolution it like it was true???? The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ?holy fabrication!? It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Hi KarmaFury ... Thank you for that link...I read most of it, and it does appear as you say , that Darwin did not recant... oh, well, it doesn't change the way i believe in any way interestingly enough, though.... the very last part of the link that you sent about Darwin, reads... Conclusion Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever." Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did. ONLY GOD KNOWS what transpired in the heart of Darwin in his last days....or even in his last breath. GOD ALONE KNOWS!!. NOT man. This is true..... no one really knows what transpires in the hearts of Any man ~ on his deathbed... except God... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Wed 06/11/08 04:25 PM
|
|
What about Adolf Hitler? He was a fanatical Christian. Wrong. He was a Darwiniest and heavily immersed in New Age Philosophy. About Darwin...Darwin tested the Bible & found it to be true. He became a Christian & denounced his theories of evolution... Can you imagine that? People still hang on evolution it like it was true???? The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ?holy fabrication!? It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Hi KarmaFury ... Thank you for that link...I read most of it, and it does appear as you say , that Darwin did not recant... oh, well, it doesn't change the way i believe in any way interestingly enough, though.... the very last part of the link that you sent about Darwin, reads... Conclusion Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever." Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did. ONLY GOD KNOWS what transpired in the heart of Darwin in his last days....or even in his last breath. GOD ALONE KNOWS!!. NOT man. your god or my god MS - There is Only ONE GOD, Tribo ahhh - then were talking mine -  joking ML
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the people of the bible believing the world was flat that is a foriegn concept at least up untill after the 1st century. we have been told about columbus and the thinking that the world was flat. by that time the continuity of the scriptures had been poluted to where man was making his own judgements about the world he lived in. i still would not believe that the people we know as the jews today would of ever of thought that. As the Prophet Isaiah clearly gives a clear description of the world that was created for them to live in..
Isa 40:22-23 22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers , Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. 23 He brings the princes to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth useless. NKJV the circle of the earth and as a tent is a very good description of our earth and atmosphere. The teaching of Yahshua may of been seen as ratical but mainly by the Religious authority that did not like the power he was taking away from them. Yahshua continually showed them thier hypocracies in front of the people to where they were afraid to even ask him a question. Doing so thier next act to save themselves as the governing authority over the people was to bring him in to secret to where the people could not see what was going on. Then putting him up with a murderer brought the people back under thier control as they seen Yahshua as not capable of over ruling those who were in power. Yahshua's own words own words tells us his coming was to show us that the commandments of men was what was being taught and ruled by. he showed it was not by man but by spirit does all man is justified by. the commandments of Yahweh and the ways of Yahweh were to be followed. That by this spirit of truth was the prophets inspired to warn the people and the people through faith had this same ability. the priesthood had been corrupted. Matt 5:17-20 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. NKJV Yahshua is telling us nothing will be changed as long as this world is here. We have been taught that the word..FULLFILL means done away yet the word by what is said in the rest of the chapter takes on the meaning of AMPLIFICATION OR AMPLFY. John 12:44-13:1 44 Then Yahshua cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him — the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak." He tells the people clearly THE WORD THAT HE HAS SPOKEN WILL JUDGE HIM. This word was the Spirit of the LAW AND THE PROPHETS. NKJV Luke 5:36-39 36 Then He spoke a parable to them: "No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. 39 And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new ; for he says, 'The old is better.'" NKJV This is an interesting parable as it speaks of wine and wine skins. This is spoken directly to the WORD OF YAHWEH. Condemning the priesthood at that time. The tear is the tear of the temple that would be accomplished as the wine is the blood of this new covenant. he is telling us you can not take and choose what it is you want and do not want as this will split the believer and cause a split in the kingdom and it will fall. Directly letting The scribes and The pharasees know what is coming to them. The Spirit comes and the new is put in the New Skins of Yahweh's House. Luke 24:25-27 25 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the messiah to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. NKJV John 8:28 28 Then said Yahshua unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. KJV This lifting up is the Lifting up of the tree in the desert whom Moses lifted up and all who looked upon it was healed from the serpants that was biting at them. This being satans hold on the people is done away if you will only look upon messiah Yahshua for your strength. John 8:39-40 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Yahshua saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of Yahweh: this did not Abraham. KJV yahshua continually spoke of "It was not so in the beginning. Yet Abraham who u trust in son's was spared you will not spare me as you are not Abraham's children. Everything continues as it has from the beginning. you killed the prophets i sent to u and you have killed the son of man. Nothing new has Yahweh ever brought out to be a burden to the people. The Law and The Prophets are the Same Yesterday Today and Tommorrow. So is Yahshua as he followed them and they spoke of him. Thier was no radical change. this is what is wrong in our learning of the scriptures is thier was change. This is nothing more than man wanting to tell the People what to do and not do. The Spirit taught Yahshua taught the prophets and will teach you if you will open your Heart to it and let the Spirit of truth reside in u. but we believe that we must come up with some new way. Children do not need a new way. They learn the basics and then go on to eat the meat of the word. Not the other way around.. here is an example of modern day worship that the scriptures say worship death. See if you can recognize them? Blessings Miles Isa 28:11-15 1 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, 12 To whom He said, "This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing"; Yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of Yahweh was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught. 14 Therefore hear the word of Yahweh, you scornful men, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." NKJV If you read on it speaks of the 2 witnesses who will be a Terror to all these people. No wonder they are hated.. |
|
|
|
|
