18 Dec 06
3 edits
More proof that you don't even read the Bible; the phrase "kingdom of the heavens" isn't used in Matthew at all!
The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament has directly underneath the Greek in Matt.5:3 ”for of them is the kingdom of the heavens”
The New Testament Recovery Version also employes “kingdom of the heavens” (plural) throughout the book of Matthew from the Nestle Greek Text. And John Nelson Darby’s New Transalation as well employs ”for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens” (plural) in Matthew 5:3 and throughout the rest of the book.
The Emphasized Bible also employs the plural ”kingdom of the heavens”. But its translator Bryant Rotherham and John Nelson Darby translated from the original language both the Hebrew and Chaldee Old Testament and the Greek New Testament.
Some English version do read ”kingdom of heaven”.
Strike one!
The closest to the phrase is in Matthew 19:12:
12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
It is not the closest phrase. You do not have to go to chapter 19 to find the same Greek phrase. From chapter 5 verse 3 you only need to go to verse 10. Same words in the Greek.
Strike two!
Note it's "heaven's" with a possessive, not "heavens" plural.
EDIT: I did a search on biblegateway.com for the phrase "Kingdom of the Heavens" in the American Standard Version and King James Version and came up with no passage that uses this phrase.
I gave you at least three reputable English translations which employ the plural “heavens”. As you know there are many English translations of the Bible let alone translations in other languages.
And I notice that even if I agree incorrectly that no English translations employ ”kingdom of the heavens” you still have not defined what the ”kingdom of heaven” is as I requested.
of you.
Strike three!
But at least you did try to search on the phrase. I have long known for years that some translations employ ”heavens” and some emply ”heaven”.
Ya didn't tell me what that kingdom was, either of the heavens or of heaven. So tell me now what do you know about it?
What is the kingdom of the heavens or "of heaven" if you prefer those renditions?
18 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by jaywill
[b] 1.) I know where I came from.
No, you believe you know where you came from, just as I do.
2.) I know why I exist and why I am here.
Me too, great isn't it?
3.) I have a world wide loving family of brothers and sisters whose love is quite warm and practical.
Are all christians equally loving re and possibly even a lack of guilt and an acceptance of your impending cessation of life.[/b]
No, you believe you know where you came from, just as I do.
Below I said “if I drop[ped] my ”faith …”.” So I already volunteered that I “know” by faith without your help.
2.) I know why I exist and why I am here.
Me too, great isn't it?
So we’re even (supposedly). I am looking for positive advantage. See none as of yet/
3.) I have a world wide loving family of brothers and sisters whose love is quite warm and practical.
Are all christians equally loving and practical? I think not.
Talking about losers? I think people who quit being disciples because of being discouraged by immature ones are not exactly winning. Are you saying that you’re that type of person?
4.) I know where human history has its destination.
Again; no, you believe you know.
I already volunteered to say this is my faith. So nothing new in you reminding me that it is my faith. Nice try.
5.) I have forgiveness of sins.
I don't believe in sin, so we both end up the same.
Do you have a set of keys on your possession? If so why don’t you just leave everything unlocked? Why do you need so many keys?
There’s no such thing as sin. No one will steal your stuff. Do you have a set of keys in your pocket, you who do not believe in sin?
Tell us why.
6.) I have the Spirit of God living in me impowering me to live Christ.
I wonder what live Christ is like, is it like live music? I am empowered by just existing, I need no infusing with anything.
I do. I need infusing, transfusing, and impartation of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
You come here to the Internet for an “infusion” of something, I’m pretty sure.
Oh, is there something fundamentally flawed in people needing an “infusion” of something positive? Is that bad in and of itself to need to be empowered?
Aren’t you “infused” with food a couple of times a day? Something basically flawed about being dependent? Only God Himself is the Life which is not dependent. All other forms of life need infusion of one kind or another.
What else you got?
7.) I have eternal life.
You believe you have eternal life, but it's still a gamble as to whether god will let you into heaven or not. Why does it bother you that life is not eternal?
Why does it bother you that God is eternal?
Why does it bother you that He loves us and wishes us to share eternity in mutual enjoyment and love?
I didn’t ask for eternal life. He offered it and I accepted it. Besides, you think that “eternal life” means only endless duration. The phrase “eternal life” in the New Testament also means quality as well as quantity.
Is there something basically flawed with desiring life to be rich, enjoyable, splendid, even glorious like the life of Jesus Christ? Is there something wrong with wanting to be like Christ?
What else do you have?
8.) I am building up the kingdom of God which I know will prevail in the end.
You sure do claim to have knowledge of a lot of things which are really inconsistent. You know not what will happen in the future, unless you're a seer maybe, do you have visions?
You’re breaking my heart.
Didn’t you know that God and the Bible have a Track Record of fulfilled prophecy? I have confidence that as God has accurately foretold the events in the past which came to be, so also He will do so again.
9.) I am becoming a son of God and brother of Jesus the Firstborn Son of God
Err... right, hope that works out for you...
This is not for some elite group. It is for “whosoever believes”
And if Christ did not rise from the dead then it won’t work. If Jesus was a liar than it won’t work. If the Bible is false, then it won’t work.
I’m hedging my bets on the previous three concepts to be true. Once again, God has a track record. God has an impressive resume.
10.) Death and sin and emptiness and vanity are conquered and under my feet.
Lol, aren't you just the all powerful conqueror, you do know that pride is a sin...
There is no pride in proclaiming the facts as they are.
”And they overcame him because of the word of their testimony …”
Now if I drop my Christian faith and take up your philisophy (whatever it is), what will it offer me?
A critical mind, a refusal to accept things you are told without evidence, a realistic view of existence and a lack of contradiction. The power of reason over desire and possibly even a lack of guilt and an acceptance of your impending cessation of life.
That’s a nice critique.
In the mean time I tallied up precious few benefits of dropping my Christian faith in favor of your philosophy, whatever it is.
Like a mouse on a spinning wheel, you covered a lot of mileage and went nowhere LOL. …. LOL!
Praise the victorious Lord Jesus. The gospel marches triumphantly on!
18 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
That’s a nice critique.
In the mean time I tallied up precious few benefits of dropping my Christian faith in favor of your philosophy, whatever it is.
Like a gerbil on a spinning wheel, you covered a lot of mileage and went no where LOL. …. LOL!
Praise the victorious Lord Jesus. The gospel marches triumphantly on!
Funny, I see no precious benefits, just rhetoric; the same lines most fervent xtians voice. I do want to address one of your posts though:
Do you have a set of keys on your possession? If so why don’t you just leave everything unlocked? Why do you need so many keys?
There’s no such thing as sin. No one will steal your stuff. Do you have a set of keys in your pocket, no you does not believe in sin?
Tell us why.
When you say 'sin' I presume you are referring to the xtian definition of the word and the concepts that reside therein. I do not believe in these, I think the nature of evil as some force against the will of god or anything else is nonsense. I see cause and event, not supernatural powers. As such, your criticisms above do not apply. I keep my doors locked to stop people stealing my stuff, not to keep out evil. Actions can be good or bad when applied relativistically to a set of social or personal morals, seperate from any sense of evil. I would not call these acts sins, since that suggests some absolute application to the supernatural. They are just events which are in opposition to the best relative actions of my moral set.
18 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIf you follow Christ, you're a Christian. Ready for a shocker? You're involved in a religion, too. And I don't want to hear protests - I insist you start using language correctly.
[b]I've given Christianity more than equal time. I was a Christian for 20 years, before finally freeing myself from it.
Who said anything abut an "anity"? Was I talking about "anity"? No I wasn't. I have been talking about Christ the living Person.
By the way. I said your understanding was warped. We all are somewhat warped in our view beca ...[text shortened]... hment fits all? One died for all that all may be saved and that all sins may be forgiven.[/b]
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by jaywillThe vast majority of translations, including the most prominent one use Kingdom of Heaven throughout Matthew. You concede as much, so you make a lousy umpire.
[b]
More proof that you don't even read the Bible; the phrase "kingdom of the heavens" isn't used in Matthew at all!
The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament has directly underneath the Greek in Matt.5:3 ”for of them is the kingdom of the heavens”
The New Testament Recovery Version also employes “kingdom of the heavens” (plural) thr ...[text shortened]... he kingdom of the heavens or "of heaven" if you prefer those renditions?[/b]
You asked what "Kingdom of the Heavens" as used in Matthew meant. Since it is not used at all in virtually all English translations, your question had an erroneous premise. And Kingdom of Heaven has a standard meaning in the Gospel i.e. a post-Judgment Day one. I'm sure you have a bizarre different meaning based on the websites that quote "Witness Lee" to an extraordinary extent. So why don't you just cut and paste a passage of tripe concerning the "Kingdom of the Heavens" and get it over with?
18 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder
The vast majority of translations, including the most prominent one use Kingdom of Heaven throughout Matthew. You concede as much, so you make a lousy umpire.
You asked what "Kingdom of the Heavens" as used in Matthew meant. Since it is not used at all in virtually all English translations, your question had an erroneous premise. And Kingdom d paste a passage of tripe concerning the "Kingdom of the Heavens" and get it over with?
The vast majority of translations, including the most prominent one use Kingdom of Heaven throughout Matthew. You concede as much, so you make a lousy umpire.
You make a poor sport. There are different MSS of the Greek New Testament. IF Darby, Rotherham, and the NIV Greek-Interlinear among others translate ”kingdom of the heavens” they must have had syntactical reasons for doing so from the MSS that they used.
I conceded that many versions do not say “heavens” in those references. I did not concede that for this reason “heavens” is not ligitimate. And giving you the option of applying either “heavens” or “heaven” I still see little cause to assume your depth of understanding of Matthew’s gospel is so much better than my own.
You asked what "Kingdom of the Heavens" as used in Matthew meant. Since it is not used at all in virtually all English translations, your question had an erroneous premise. And Kingdom of Heaven has a standard meaning in the Gospel i.e. a post-Judgment Day one.
Now that is interesting. The Kingdom of the Heavens has a standard meaning in the Gospels of “post-Judgment Day” kingdom. You're ignorant of the subject matter.
Christ gave to Peter the keys to open the kingdom of the heavens (or kingdom of heaven if you prefer) on the day of Pentacost. When Peter preached the gospel and 3000 were brought into the new testament church life, they entered into the kingdom of the heavens via one of Peter’s keys.
This was long before Judgment Day.
”And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of the heavens, …” (See Matthew 16:18,19)
Want to read about how Peter used the keys to open the door to the kingdom of the heavens? It is in the book of Acts when thousands came into the new covenant church life. Oh the door belongs to the house, the church. And the church is built on the rock – not Peter the stone but the revelation of Christ as the Son of the living God.
You should be able to see the close relationship with entering into the door of the church life and entering into the kingdom of the heavens. Pentecost occurred long before the last judgment by the way.
I'm sure you have a bizarre different meaning based on the websites that quote "Witness Lee" to an extraordinary extent. So why don't you just cut and paste a passage of tripe concerning the "Kingdom of the Heavens" and get it over with?
There’s such comfort in falling back on “guilt by association” when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
18 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Starrman[/b]Something wrong with being fervent?
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]That’s a nice critique.
In the mean time I tallied up precious few benefits of dropping my Christian faith in favor of your philosophy, whatever it is.
Like a gerbil on a spinning wheel, you covered a lot of mileage and went no where LOL. …. LOL!
Praise the victorious Lord Jesus. The gospel marches triumphant l. They are just events which are in opposition to the best relative actions of my moral set.
Are you afraid to write out the name "Christ?" I usually regard people who use words like "xtians" as really running away.
So you lock your door to keep out the act of stealing your stuff. But you DO NOT lock your door to keep out evil?
That is kind of self contradictory. I don't think one has to resort necessarily to a "supernatural" cause of sin. Judging from Romans chapter 7 I would say that sin could be defined as some power in man, (supernatural or otherwise) causing him to be weak in carrying out the good that his conscience agrees with and performing that which his conscience does not agree with.
In other words in Romans 7 where Paul really gives the "Christian" definition of sin, he defines it as a power in man causing him to act against the better judgment of his conscience, a conscience which delights in the goodness of God's commandments.
You do that which you do not agree with in your conscience. And you often fail to do that which your conscience delights that you would do. Me too. And that power "supernatural" or otherwise, is something we need to be saved from.
Of course the alternative of some segment of mankind is to adopt an attitude of "if you can't beat them, join them". They cannot stop the flood gates of lust and evil, so they try to embrace it, exalt in it, count it as normal, and even revel in it in a prideful way.
These are all attempts to pacify the God created human conscience which protests. Like saying that you are Sodomy Incarnate. This is just trying to embrace degradation as normal and even a thing in which to exalt.
We are loved by the Savior Jesus. And we can be both forgiven and set free from the power of sin and its actual and real record of guilt.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by jaywillThis is funny from a person who does nothing other than quote the bible and believes it unquestioningly.
Barnyard noises was even more than I expected from you in defense of your sickly enemic worldly philosophy.
Let me know when you graduate (or evolve) from a mediocre troll to a serious debater.
You do realise that the bible is the most inaccurate book of history ever, right?
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf a rational agent lacks belief in God in the absence of sufficient evidence or in the presence of countervailing evidence...
If a rational agent lacks belief in God in the absence of sufficient evidence or in the presence of countervailing evidence, then God will toss the person in hell? That's really compassionate of Him.
Besides, you haven't ever explained how a rational agent can be morally responsible for belief (or lack thereof). Belief-building is not a wholly ...[text shortened]... r would endow us with rationality only to punish us in cruel ways if we don't suspend it.
Your premise is based upon a conjecture which does not agree with reality. The premise simply doesn't hold water, and is only bolstered by insult and sarcasm. You are forced to a position which insists that a rational agent can have but one conclusion regarding God: yours. Ergo, all other conclusions in contradiction to yours are (by default) held by irrational agents.
Here's where the insult and sarcasm enter, totally beyond your best efforts at elimination. How do you explain the countless intelligent, rational people who have concluded that belief in God is supported by overwhelming confirming evidence? How do you explain the saturation of man's theological disposition throughout human history which is so predominant as to be the single most common factor of man's existence?
The faith which you take great pains to negate you nonetheless embrace: your faith is wholly placed upon your ability to determine the salient issue of life. You say that God wouldn't value such faith, such trust, yet you value it more than life itself. As you should.
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"How do you explain the countless intelligent, rational people who have concluded that belief in God is supported by overwhelming confirming evidence?"
[b]If a rational agent lacks belief in God in the absence of sufficient evidence or in the presence of countervailing evidence...
Your premise is based upon a conjecture which does not agree with reality. The premise simply doesn't hold water, and is only bolstered by insult and sarcasm. You are forced to a position which insists that a rational age ...[text shortened]... ldn't value such faith, such trust, yet you value it more than life itself. As you should.[/b]
1. Name some of these people.
2. What exactly is this overwhelming evidence?
19 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThere is no contradiction whatsoever. Whether it is supernatural or not is unimportant, the notion of classifying amoral acts into a power, force, common denominator or whatever does the same thing; it creates an opposition against which you claim the nature of good should prevail. I don't believe in the seperation of good and evil in terms of the absolute.
Something wrong with being fervent?
Are you afraid to write out the name "Christ?" I usually regard people who use words like "xtians" as really running away.
So you lock your door to keep out the act of stealing your stuff. But you DO NOT lock your door to keep out evil?
That is kind of self contradictory. I don't think one given and set free from the power of sin and its actual and real record of guilt.[/b]
I embrace all levels of exploration, I don't believe sodomy is evil because I don't believe anything is evil. As long as it harms no other person, it is perfectly enjoyable and there should be no reason against it. The fact that I have my title as it is purely provocative, following on from Clean Cut's abhorrent views on homosexuals.
And typing xtian, rather than Christian, is merely apathy.
19 Dec 06
Originally posted by howardgeeThis is funny from a person who does nothing other than quote ...
This is funny from a person who does nothing other than quote the bible and believes it unquestioningly.
You do realise that the bible is the most inaccurate book of history ever, right?
Go through the posts and count the number of words which are quotations from the Bible and compare them with the number which are not.
You'll quickly see that I do not "do nothing other than quote the Bible".
How come you're such a liar?
19 Dec 06
2 edits
Marauder,
You do realise that the bible is the most inaccurate book of history ever, right?
Given your propensity to lie, I would not turn to you for insight into the accuracy of the Bible's facts.
Apathy must bread dishonesty in some people, especially those who don't believe such a thing as sin exists or who are sensationalists by nature.
We're through.
19 Dec 06
Originally posted by jaywillIn your opinion, what has been the main accomplishment of this thread?
Marauder,
[b]You do realise that the bible is the most inaccurate book of history ever, right?
Given your propensity to lie, I would not turn to you for insight into the accuracy of the Bible's facts.
Apathy must bread dishonesty in some people, especially those who don't believe such a thing as sin exists or who are sensationalists by nature.
We're through.[/b]