Anti-Semitism In France!

[ousooner 1]

laurend: I agree with you. Doing good for goodness' sake is far more admirable than doing good to accomplish one of our own personal goals. Whether it is a personal goal to bring people to the Bible or whether it is because of a personal goal of writing off the contribution on our taxes. One could even do good acts to impress others. Those are all selfish reasons for doing good deeds.

The deeds can still be beneficial, but people should own up to their motives and should realize that they are being selfish and self-serving. Hmmm, the word, hypocritical comes to mind when I think of some of the Southern Baptists who have been near and dear to me in the past. I hate to say that, but it is too true and it was a huge lesson to me to have lived with, loved and been loved by someone who is truly a hypocrite.

Ouch, that hurts Sorry you had bad experiences with us. We aren't all bad, I promise

[Ron Cusano 0]

Thank you for saying that. If I sometimes come across in an inapproiate manner, I do apoligize, but I am very, very passionate about the Bible and my beliefs. They are my life. My purpose here is not to win arguments or to pressure people to believe what I believe because I believe it. My purpose is to present the truth of the scriptures, because that actually are true, and leave it up to God to deal with everyone on His terms and in His time. That is my obligation as a Believer.

I must tell you that the Bible does teach that many will be offended by the Word, as I was many years ago. I thought of some the way some here preceive me. I was wrong, and perhaps somewhere down the line, others here will realize they have me sized up all wrong.

I still have my old Italian temper (God isn't throught with me yet ) and when some post in a manner that I take as provoking and barbed, I sometimes tend to respond the same. It is wrong and I apoligize for that. The Holy Spirit is constantly refining us, and that takes place until we go home to be with Jesus.

Thanks very much for your response, but I honestly wasn't asking you to apologize or feel bad for typos or misspellings. We all make those kinds of mistakes. I just sensed that you felt that people were nit-picking and being rude to you. I don't think that the two just previous instances of posters who asked for clarification were intending anything but to understand what you were wanting to say.

I feel that I have a confession of my own to make to you Ron. I have been very put off and angry and frankly disgusted by some of the things you've posted here. I have known so many arrogant and pompous people in my lifetime who use religion to feel superior to others and who use the Bible to point out the errors of other men's ways. They used to make me feel bad about my beliefs and about the path I've taken on my spiritual Quest. Now they upset me because I remember how they used to be able to make me feel. I don't want others to have the same bad feelings about some Christians that I have felt.

But I have become emotional and I have behaved in a very unattractive way and I know that Jesus would not embrace some of the things I've said, even though they were said because I thought that He would be offended by things that you said. Two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I believe that you are sincere in your words. Intellectually I do not agree with you, or most of the things that you say and the way you come back at people and avoid taking responsibility for the things that YOU say (not the Bible), but it is not for me to correct you. If anyone is driven away from the Bible or God because of you, I know that it is for Jesus and God to fix. Not me. So I apologize for my inappropriate comments to you. Although I said earlier that I would, I didn't stick to my word and keep quiet unless I had something good to say. But from here on out, I make a vow to do that. Not out of respect for you personally Ron, but out of respect for another of God's somewhat fragmented children.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I am going to assume that this is a serious post, but I have my doubts! God created us in His spiritual image. Obviously, God is spirit and does not have a physical body,with the exception of when He took on flech and became a man as Jesus.

Just as God is triune in nature (Farther, Son and Holy Spirit) so is man a triune being (Body, Soul and Spirit)

So the Bible is not word for word accurate.

"God created us in His spiritual image"?

Genesis:

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I took this from the King James Version. I believe you referred to it as the "gold standard" or some other endearing term and they left out the word "spiritual".

[Ron Cusano 0]

I mthink you have the wrong impression of the Strongs Concordance. First it is available for many different literal translations of the Bible.

It is not a Bible, it is a dictionary of sorts giving the actual Hebrew or Greek word used in the oldest manuscripts, and their translated meaning into today's english by the worlds leading experts in this field. In essence, the Strongs Concordance is not trying to justify any translation, only provide the actual translated meaning, word by word for every single word used in the original manuscripts. It a very valuable tool used and recognized by all Bible scolars that I have ever known or heard of.

Ok, Im sorta back. I need to go back and read over some posts, but I have a question.

It looks to me that the Strong Concordance was written, in essence backwards.

By this I mean, Strong took the KJV of the bible and justified it with defintion. Not creating a newly translated bible.

Everywhere I look, its always, Strong's Concordance of the KJV.

And still the concordance gives a varity of "possible words that can be used" in places.

Its like I am looking at a thesaurus, not a literal transalation.

I could do this with ALL versions of the bible and still fit in to Strong's definitions of what the words are.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I can hardly wait for TOM's reply...

FWIW, I took TOM's post as serious.

I was dead serious. Serious to show that the Bible is not word for word true.

The need for man to be in God's image was what was needed by the primitive people of the time. It was what was supposed to separate us from (other) animals in such a way that early man could feel superior to animals, though except for brain power, man is inferior to most of the animal kingdom.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

He was, but His primary reason for coming and His primary message was SALVATION! Anything else was secondary. Without salvation, social issues mean nothing.

And without food, the poor would not live long enough to be saved. And slaves didn't get much chance to exercise free will either in order to learn the teachings of Jesus..

Jesus spent a large percentage of his time helping the poor and saying things that promoted the poor to a higher level than the powerful and rich. Just as God said that the people of Israel were his chosen people, I believe Jesus said that the poor and infirm were his chosen people.

[Ron Cusano 0]

That quote is 100% accurate, and please not it say's "in our image" which is an indication to the pluarality of God. You are taking image to mean physical image, and it does not. Since God is spirit and does not have a body, in cannot possible mean "physical image", can it?

The Hebrew word used that was translated to meane "image" was the word "Tselem" which means "to shade; a phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure". As you can see, this does not necessarily mean a "physical image". Given what the whole of scripture teaches us about the spiritual nature of God, the explanation that gave you is the correct one. I have never heard a student of scripture explain it otherwise.

So the Bible is not word for word accurate.

"God created us in His spiritual image"?

Genesis:

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I took this from the King James Version. I believe you referred to it as the "gold standard" or some other endearing term and they left out the word "spiritual".

[Ron Cusano 0]

Is that your own reasoning and opinion fo are your getting if from somewhere else? It is completely untrue.

I was dead serious. Serious to show that the Bible is not word for word true.

The need for man to be in God's image was what was needed by the primitive people of the time. It was what was supposed to separate us from (other) animals in such a way that early man could feel superior to animals, though except for brain power, man is inferior to most of the animal kingdom.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You seem to be making up your own Bible. Jesus never said the poor were the 'Chosen People"! That is a complete fabrication.

The role of the Messiah coming was to die for the sins of mankind, for all who will accept it. The miracles that he performed were to establish His messianiac credentials which were foretold by Bible prophecy. Yes Jesus taught that we ought to feed the hungry and cloth the poor, and love one another, but His purpose in coming was to bring salvation, not effect change for social issues. You can't write your own Bible!

And without food, the poor would not live long enough to be saved. And slaves didn't get much chance to exercise free will either in order to learn the teachings of Jesus..

Jesus spent a large percentage of his time helping the poor and saying things that promoted the poor to a higher level than the powerful and rich. Just as God said that the people of Israel were his chosen people, I believe Jesus said that the poor and infirm were his chosen people.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

That quote is 100% accurate, and please not it say's "in our image" which is an indication to the pluarality of God. You are taking image to mean physical image, and it does not. Since God is spirit and does not have a body, in cannot possible mean "physical image", can it?

The Hebrew word used that was translated to meane "image" was the word "Tselem" which means "to shade; a phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure". As you can see, this does not necessarily mean a "physical image". Given what the whole of scripture teaches us about the spiritual nature of God, the explanation that gave you is the correct one. I have never heard a student of scripture explain it otherwise.

Double talk.

"to shade; a phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure" does not mean spirit.

It could mean anything you want it to mean. I think the only illusion here is the illusion that one can take words from ancient languages and squeeze whatever is needed to be heard out of them.

Genesis 2:

1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Why would a spirit have to rest? Why would an ALMIGHTY GOD have to rest? Requiring rest makes God less than Almighty and less than a God.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

You seem to be making up your own Bible. Jesus never said the poor were the 'Chosen People"! That is a complete fabrication.

The role of the Messiah coming was to die for the sins of mankind, for all who will accept it. The miracles that he performed were to establish His messianiac credentials which were foretold by Bible prophecy. Yes Jesus taught that we ought to feed the hungry and cloth the poor, and love one another, but His purpose in coming was to bring salvation, not effect change for social issues. You can't write your own Bible!

Typo: I meant to write: Just as God said that the people of Israel were his chosen people, I believe Jesus chose the poor and infirm as his chosen people.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You can twist, turn and question all you want, but it does not change scripture. God rested in the sense that the ceased from creating. You are trying to attribute human limitations of God who is spirit and all powerful. If you understood all of scripture, and did not need to pull out verses to try to make them something there are not intended to be, we would not be having this conversation. You could do as much with any book, article or newspaper ever written, but it doesn't change it's context or meaning.

Double talk.

"to shade; a phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure" does not mean spirit.

It could mean anything you want it to mean. I think the only illusion here is the illusion that one can take words from ancient languages and squeeze whatever is needed to be heard out of them.

Genesis 2:

1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Why would a spirit have to rest? Why would an ALMIGHTY GOD have to rest? Requiring rest makes God less than Almighty and less than a God.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Understood! Butthat may be your opinion, but it is not scriptural.

Typo: I meant to write: Just as God said that the people of Israel were his chosen people, I believe Jesus chose the poor and infirm as his chosen people.

[green 6]

You seem to be making up your own Bible. Jesus never said the poor were the 'Chosen People"! That is a complete fabrication.

The role of the Messiah coming was to die for the sins of mankind, for all who will accept it. The miracles that he performed were to establish His messianiac credentials which were foretold by Bible prophecy. Yes Jesus taught that we ought to feed the hungry and cloth the poor, and love one another, but His purpose in coming was to bring salvation, not effect change for social issues. You can't write your own Bible!

But what is the value of belief in salvation without acknowledgement of the value of good works? The Old Covenant offers up the Ten Commandments and the New Testament offers up the injunction that we must love our neighbours as we would ourselves be loved. We are also presented with the spectacle of who Jesus was when He appeared in His fleshly form and how He behaved while He was downstairs and walking about on this earth. All of this is, presumably, part of the package, is it not?

(Hitler, by the way, had a belief in salvation and thought that it would be a good thing to scrub out the Jews. This, arguably, was not a good work, eh.)

[Wheetsin 714]

Well, there is whare you are so wrong!

Sometimes something as little as an "IMHO" can get you farther and have more impact than pages and pages of absolutes. Even an "IMO", if one doesn't consider themselves particularly humble.