Revelations 20:12

Originally posted by kirksey957
Hal Lindsey is a charleton. He blows the way the front page of the paper blows. An absolute joke. He is not taken seriously by a single educated theologian in the world. He is to religion what the potato chip is to a healthy diet.

Poor Hal. He got carried away and thought he was a prohet.

Edit: My personal favorite: Jimmy Swaggart.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Here's my point. Big Mac wants to know what the motivation is. He wants to know what the context is. Why must he know these things? What if I were to question Scripture in the same way? Inerrancy's message is that there is no need to worry about the context because it's all true.

Fundamentalists believe everything should come from their frame o ...[text shortened]... a parable about those that come to the banquet.

By the way, it wasn't Coldplay.

By the way, it wasn't Coldplay.
Maybe you were quoting 50-cent, but his line is eerily similar to Coldplay. To wit:

"God give me style and give me grace God put a smile upon my face Where do we go to draw the line I`ve gotta say, I..."

Just saying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]By the way, it wasn't Coldplay.
Maybe you were quoting 50-cent, but his line is eerily similar to Coldplay. To wit:

"God give me style and give me grace God put a smile upon my face Where do we go to draw the line I`ve gotta say, I..."

Just saying.[/b]

Truly a case of "in Christ there is no east or west."

Originally posted by kirksey957
Truly a case of "in Christ there is no east or west."

True, that.

Originally posted by whodey
Matthew 25? You kids seem to loooove Matthew 25. What specific work does it say in Matthew 25 you must do in order to be saved? It does not list a specific work does it? What it is saying, is that we must live by faith and we must have love in our hearts to be saved. Their is not a specific work in general. For example, the illustration about the talent ...[text shortened]... wn theology or you do not understand the theology of faith and love he was attempting to convey.

When I read posts like this, it makes me wonder if some of the so-called "Christians" on this site have ever even read the Gospels. They seem to rely entirely on "crib notes" from various Fundamentalists while ignoring Jesus' words.

whodey: It does not list a specific work does it?

Yes, it does.

for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;

36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Are these works, whodey? When Jesus is describing Judgment Day, where does he say it's an "illustration"? Where else in Scripture does Jesus specifically describe Judgment Day? Nowhere. Do you think that this passage is less important than letters that Paul wrote to small groups of Christians in Asia Minor and Greece?

Your preconceptions are blinding you to what it actually says. Try reading it free of them; maybe you'll learn something.

Originally posted by no1marauder
When I read posts like this, it makes me wonder if some of the so-called "Christians" on this site have ever even read the Gospels. They seem to rely entirely on "crib notes" from various Fundamentalists while ignoring Jesus' words.

whodey: It does not list a specific work does it?

Yes, it does.

for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; ...[text shortened]... ou to what it actually says. Try reading it free of them; maybe you'll learn something.

Such a naive and simplistic view of Scripture will land anyone so encumbered in the nearest mental hospital. While seemingly one-dimensional and straight-forward, the speeches within the Gospels are some of the most difficult passages within all of the Scriptures.

Without a proper perspective, the reader is bound to fall into all types of error, as evidenced here by no1. Proper exegetical treatment is imperative to cohesive understanding.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Without a proper perspective, the reader is bound to fall into all types of error, as evidenced here by no1. Proper exegetical treatment is imperative to cohesive understanding.

If that is true, is it fair to say then that the people He was speaking to wouldn't have had the foggiest idea of what he was on about?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If that is true, is it fair to say then that the people He was speaking to wouldn't have had the foggiest idea of what he was on about?

Exactly right. Ask, seek, knock.

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
so that,
"'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

"With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand.
He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."
Mark 4:10-12 and 33,34

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If that is true, is it fair to say then that the people He was speaking to wouldn't have had the foggiest idea of what he was on about?

Jeez, Christ's last words to the people and the fundies refuse to believe Him, what a bunch of goats!

Originally posted by frogstomp
Jeez, Christ's last words to the people and the fundies refuse to believe Him, what a bunch of goats!

Funny how you're always reaching erroneous conclusions based on half-baked information, don't you think?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Exactly right. Ask, seek, knock.

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
so that,
"'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never underst ...[text shortened]... n he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."
Mark 4:10-12 and 33,34

That was before the he spoke the words in Matthew 25, the words he came here to say, I might add. Although there is a metaphor in Matthew 25, I sincerely doubt that in your present "exegesis" mode you'd be capable of understanding it.
Your view of ask, seek and knock belies the fact that the masses were there asking, seeking as he knocked off his final message, that was the end and the resurrection was just an epilogue to show the people He was who he said he was.
Paul writings should never have been included as a gospel, because it denigrates the message of Christ as it raises Paul to the same level as Christ.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That was before the he spoke the words in Matthew 25, the words he came here to say, I might add. Although there is a metaphor in Matthew 25, I sincerely doubt that in your present "exegesis" mode you'd be capable of understanding it.
Your view of ask, seek and knock belies the fact that the masses were there asking, seeking as he knocked off h ...[text shortened]... l, because it denigrates the message of Christ as it raises Paul to the same level as Christ.

That was before the he spoke the words in Matthew 25, the words he came here to say, I might add.
You can add anything you like. I wasn't quoting 'ask, seek, knock,' chronologically, but as more as a formula for understanding.

I sincerely doubt that in your present "exegesis" mode you'd be capable of understanding it.
Your sincerity is ill-placed.

Paul writings should never have been included as a gospel, because it denigrates the message of Christ as it raises Paul to the same level as Christ.
It is highly doubtful that your misgivings based on your misunderstandings of Scripture will hold any water.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Such a naive and simplistic view of Scripture will land anyone so encumbered in the nearest mental hospital. While seemingly one-dimensional and straight-forward, the speeches within the Gospels are some of the most difficult passages within all of the Scriptures.

Without a proper perspective, the reader is bound to fall into all types of error, as evidenced here by no1. Proper exegetical treatment is imperative to cohesive understanding.

I really like the way you describe Christ as an idiot that couldn't speak clearly, and people need an @sshole like you to tell them what he meant.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]That was before the he spoke the words in Matthew 25, the words he came here to say, I might add.
You can add anything you like. I wasn't quoting 'ask, seek, knock,' chronologically, but as more as a formula for understanding.

I sincerely doubt that in your present "exegesis" mode you'd be capable of understanding it.
Your sincerit ...[text shortened]... ful that your misgivings based on your misunderstandings of Scripture will hold any water.[/b]

Teaching christianity to you aint my cross to bear and that's the facts Jack, what I really don't like about you is that you make Christ into a clown that goes around mumbling nonsense to the masses and then explaining it to his buddies.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Funny how you're always reaching erroneous conclusions based on half-baked information, don't you think?

I am just like a clown mumbling nonsense to the masses, too bad you aint my buddy.