by Fester 43 Replies latest jw friends
3am, Shelby, hmm?
Well done.
You too, Burns.
I don't know that I have anything to add. I have freedom in Christ - freedom to love and to live in peace and joy. Also, think about what loving Jesus' first actually means. It isn't petulant or selfish. Having that love, Jesus' command is that we love one another. That we do good to one another. That we be merciful and forgiving.
Tammy
I'm religiously free, too, but I do find that there are lots of things I can learn from my deities.
This is an interesting thread:)
Well done Shelby, you obviously had the Holy Spirit speaking through you when you wrote that.
Well done Shelby, you obviously had the Holy Spirit speaking through you when you wrote that.
Doesn't she though?
I know that when I first read those passages from Matt, I also had trouble with them, then I opened my heart to understanding and it was revelaed that Matthew's Gospel is directed, more so, to the Hebrew audience of the time and as such, we have to read it with that in mind and in doing so, many of Shelby's points become clear.
She just makes them so very well, so much better than I ever could :)
She just makes them so very well, so much better than I ever could :)
Agreed.
I meant that I agree for me, Psac :) I didn't mean to say that she makes her points so much better than you make yours.
Tammy
I consider myself spiritual. I don't believe a person must believe in Jesus to be a good person or to feel good about life. I follow the thought of a group of biblical scholars called the "Jesus Seminar". Jesus was a man a prophet, and he had followers but much about his life was added long after the fact.
I've known many buddhist who were outstanding people and they don't believe in Jesus as a savior of mankind, I think buddhist concepts are spot on in many things but not everything.
Shelby I appreciate all that you stated here, but the cold hard facts are quite simple, the biblical format is one mainly taken from the Mithras concerning the character in the story called "Jesus". We have absolutely no historical documents proving the existence of Jesus. We have no proof of authorship of any of the gospels. We have no credible contemporary historian to ever once mention Jesus in any historical document in the first century.
Now, concerning the story of the bible itself, aside from no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, let's assume that your Lord is real and does exist. You commented on how he didn't come to bring peace and unite fathers with sons, mothers with daughters, correct? You stated that his coming was going to definitely bring division among family, correct? If his coming wasn't to bring peace among all family members, than how does he actually fit the role of Messiah? Moreover, how does any of this "I'm not here to bring peace but division among families" fit with Paul's words in Ephesians Chapter 2 where he said "He came preaching peace and breaking down the dividing wall of hostility"? Malachi 4:6 tells us that the Moshiach(s) are always supposed to unite people, family, Israel, etc. The goal of the Moshiach is to reunite the two houses of Israel/Judah, not divide!
Another question for you though: How does Isaiah 7:14 end up in Matthew? Doesn't Isaiah 7:14 strictly deal with Isaiah's son in Isaiah 8:3? What kind of sign was given to Ahaz that he could interpret 700 years later?
Careful with me.... I've been known to slowly persuade MANY away from Jesus and eliminate their crutches....
Careful with me.... I've been known to slowly persuade MANY away from Jesus and eliminate their crutches....
You don't know Shelby then.
Took the words out of my mouth Gary.
Tammy
