Once again it is a picture. You are assuming that simply because the NIB has a picture of Jesus as an Indian peasant it refers to him as an Indian peasant.[
Another thing that has been bugging me through this whole thing: You are assuming that an Adult Indian cannot comprehend between the Biblical Jesus and a picture in his Bible. A five year can be taught that the picture of the Caucasian Jesus in their Bible isn't the Biblical Jesus, and yet you think a grown Desi convert cannot tell the difference between a picture of Jesus, and the Jesus of the Bible?
Until you get to know the Indian culture, and it's people, don't make assumptions about their ability to comprehend Biblical truths. They aren't children, and they are far from dumb.
I never said they were dumb. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Look, if you want to promote a false Gospel, that's up to you.
And this is a lie on your part. I have told you many times that I DO NOT CARE how the picture portrays Jesus' physical appearance.
Dishonestly implying that I'm a racist doesn't exactly help your cause
ok, cool, I am just trying to get an understanding, you do not care how the picture makes Jesus look, the Indian translation of the Bible teaches that Jesus was a Jew.
So everybody is happy?
I was not saying you were racist, i was wondering why you seemed to be upset about one picture of Jesus and not the other
__________________ VIVA CRISTO REY
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Then denounce all pictures of a Caucasian Jesus as promoting a false gospel. I haven't seen an ounce of that in your posts.
The reason you haven't seen it is that I'm not talking about a picture or a physical description or depiction of Jesus' physical appearance.
You can continue to imply that I'm a racist as much as you like, but I believe I've explained to you so many times now that my problem has nothing to do with the physical depiction of Jesus, that it really only makes you look dishonest to do so.
ok, cool, I am just trying to get an understanding, you do not care how the picture makes Jesus look, the Indian translation of the Bible teaches that Jesus was a Jew.
So everybody is happy?
God is not happy when somebody perverts His word, as they have in this case by stating that Jesus is not a Jew, but an Indian peasant.
I was not saying you were racist, i was wondering why you seemed to be upset about one picture of Jesus and not the other
I have explained to you many times now that I could not care less about the ethnic depiction of Jesus, but if you want to continue to insist that I did, then I think that shows just how far Catholics are willing to go to undermine the word of God.
job description: following orders of the Lord Jesus Christ
Originally Posted by Rhamiel
I did not pull out the "30,000 denominations" lie, in the Conservative Christian forum we had an interesting thread about Protestantism and someone pointed out the 30,000 denominations myth is a lie, but there are about 7 broad "families" for protestant denominations and inside each denomination family there is considerable differances between some denominations. With disunity between the differant protestant denominations, for example the Calvinist/Arminian split, they do not really seem united in faith since they preach differant things.
it is not a game of semantics, I think the Catholic Church has a proper understanding of the Bible, you think the Baptist church has a proper understanding of the Bible. We are both Christians, I recognize that, and so do most Catholics, there are bigots in every group, the wheat and the tares grow side by side. Catholics who are on this site who say Protestants are not Christian, well they should not be on this site either (they are also going agianst Catholic Church teaching if they say Protestants are not Christian)
Not going to go into the "no salvation outside of the Church" thing, it would just derail the thread even more, you can ask about it in OBOB or argue about it in GT if you want.
Just a comment. I believe the wheat are those who obey Christ and allow him to bear fruit in their lives. Name calling is pointless. There are only two names. One is obedience to Christ Jesus (his teachings and Gospel (Good News)) and the other is disobedient. Who has it right? The ones who will take the Bible and follow Christ above all. Following the decipherings (theological add-ons) of the Bible in noway means that you have it right: (denominationalism). Better be sure and let the rest go. We have a job to do, if we are to follow Christ. Did anyone here what he told us to do?
God is not happy when somebody perverts His word, as they have in this case by stating that Jesus is not a Jew, but an Indian peasant.
Except they never claimed he was. He only wears the clothing of an Indian peasant in art, and as many people point out, its a common practice to show Jesus in clothing that is similar to the people they are sending the message out too.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
God is not happy when somebody perverts His word, as they have in this case by stating that Jesus is not a Jew, but an Indian peasant.
I have explained to you many times now that I could not care less about the ethnic depiction of Jesus, but if you want to continue to insist that I did, then I think that shows just how far Catholics are willing to go to undermine the word of God.
Has the Indian Bible said that outright, that Jesus was not a Jew? This thread is about whether or not they add quotes from Ghandi, and the Bhagavad Gita to the Bible as verses, or as reference points.
And I apologize for any implications I made. I am very defensive about the Indian culture. I am sorry.
Linear Mode
