The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[razzelflabben]

OK, let's deal with your website:


Well of course Satan is the "god" of this world. But he is not king. There is an important conceptual difference between "who is on the throne over this world" (Jesus) and who people actually worship. I entirely agree - Satan has great, even "god-like" power. But that does not make Him King. Who is King? Paul tells us here in Romans 15:

And again, Isaiah says,

“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;

Are you going to deny that this is not a reference to Jesus being enthroned through His resurrection. Remember, Paul says the "root of Jesse" will, yes, arise.

Or if this is not clear, here is Jesus Himself speaking to his followers:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Unless there is at least one 2000 year old guy hobbling around, the kingdom of God is already here.

And would Satan be on the throne during the time of the Kingdom of God?

the website summarizes my position very well and everything I said...as I previously said and another poster requested, that ends that part of our discussion.

 

[Luke17:37]

Or if this is not clear, here is Jesus Himself speaking to his followers:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Unless there is at least one 2000 year old guy hobbling around, the kingdom of God is already here.

And would Satan be on the throne during the time of the Kingdom of God?

Peter, James and John saw the kingdom of God at the transfiguration of Jesus just a few days later.

Matthew 16:28
28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Matthew 17:1-2
17 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

 

[razzelflabben]

the message

"wow, my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out what you don't understand about what I said....If Jesus was ruling this earth at this moment in time, there would be no sin."

Could be interpreted either literally or sarcastically.

Literally is proper, sarcastically renders it inoperable.
Jesus is not manifest ruling on earth, that is why it can be perceived sarcastically, which goes more along the lines of renders it inoperable.

I thought you were the one wanting the discussion to end? Now here you are trying to argue it, how does that make sense? Oh well, the website summarizes what I said very well and so it ends there.

 

[Stillicidia]

If this argument is going to stay, then have smaller messages, because long ones vexes the soul.

There are not different ways of looking at the same evidence, either one is given by God, or one is twisted by satan. You are right that you need to test, or understand the difference, but convey these things more simply.

 

[razzelflabben]

If this argument is going to stay, then have smaller messages, because long ones vexes the soul.

There are not different ways of looking at the same evidence, either one is given by God, or one is twisted by satan. You are right that you need to test, or understand the difference, but convey these things more simply.

when I conveyed them simply, it was twisted into something I didn't say...funny how that happens.

 

[expos4ever]

Peter, James and John saw the kingdom of God at the transfiguration of Jesus just a few days later.

Matthew 16:28
28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Matthew 17:1-2
17 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

Did Jesus say "some here will not taste death toll they see the transfiguration?"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Just like it can be an over-simplification to think the story of the wolf and the three little pigs as a lesson that we should produce strong houses; it is clearly more general than that and has nothing in particular to do with houses. I think you are fixated on this idea that any attempt to rework a prophecy from a strictly literal reading is suspicious. Well, the example I just provided - over the top though it is - should make the case. There are many other morality tales that are clearly metaphor - they present an account of something happening in order to make an entirely different point. I suggest that something similar is at play with respect to the Old Testament.


Well, you are not yet in a position to judge whether I am going to do this, or whether I will expose a more nuanced reading of the prophecy that, to an objective eye, actually does expose its deeper meaning in an entirely legitimate way.


Of course, but I think I have been clear about this: this and other prophecies were never intended to be taken at face value. If you rule out this possibility a priori, then we have nothing more to talk about since I am not going to get into a long defence of the use of literary device (in this case where a "superficial" promise is really a way to point to a deeper promise) in religious literature. I take it as self-evident that, to be fair about this, you need to at least consider the arguments and not dismiss them before you have even heard them.

Getting the moral of the story via metaphor or allegory is different than prophesying about the future. But yes, a prophecy could be interpreted allegorically. That doesn't mean it is a valid interpretation.

Paul tries to make allegories out of prophecies which appear (to me and to most Jews of his time) to be intended to be literal.

How is that vague?

Refer to all my questions that I listed which needed to be clarified regarding your re-interpreted prophecy. (Post #144)

I see the "re-interpretation" as similar to "getting" the moral of the story of the three little pigs and the wolf. A more profound, global, and significant promise is pointed to by the promise of one strip of land to one people. I do not see how that makes it "vague".

I don't even know what your prophecy refers to.

 

[Stillicidia]

Rubber Ducky, you're the one!
Rubber Ducky, you're lots of fun!

 

[expos4ever]

when I conveyed them simply, it was twisted into something I didn't say...funny how that happens.

I invite you to explain to all here precisely how I have misrepresented you.

 

[ScottA]

...

...

You both seem to be on the same page...except for the timing.

Biblical timing is kind of my specialty

So...instead of "when" Satan is king or Jesus is king....it would be better to consider it as "where" each is king. In other words, "This" world where sin exists, is ruled by Satan. But "the" world [was] overcome by Jesus, in that there is a "new" world under construction during these times. Of course, if we get back on the subject of time, however...we must say, "It is finished." And it is...technically. So...the sinful world of time only exists within the original creation - while, we...if we have been born again into the "new" earth...we are citizens of both - and yet the two should not be confuse. Or we will argue...until the end of time.

 

[expos4ever]

Hi LRLRLR,

If you do not agree that a prophecy can, repeat can, be validly interpreted allegorically, then there is no point continuing our discussion.

 

[razzelflabben]

You both seem to be on the same page...except for the timing.

Biblical timing is kind of my specialty

So...instead of "when" Satan is king or Jesus is king....it would be better to consider it as "where" each is king. In other words, "This" world where sin exists, is ruled by Satan. But "the" world [was] overcome by Jesus, in that there is a "new" world under construction during these times. Of course, if we get back on the subject of time, however...we must say, "It is finished." And it is...technically. So...the sinful world of time only exists within the original creation - while, we...if we have been born again into the "new" earth...we are citizens of both - and yet the two should not be confuse. Or we will argue...until the end of time.

yeah, tried to suggest that but was still told I was wrong and we needed to argue some more, but thanks, you said it well.

 

[Strong in Him]

I was introduced to Jesus at about the same time I was introduced to Yogananda Paramahansa, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Krishnamurti, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, Buddha and other Indian saints / gurus. All these people have followers who have made fantastical and miraculous claims about their leaders.

The most fantastical claims were made by Jesus himself. Such as;
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
"Whoever believes in me will have eternal life."
"I am the resurrection and the life, whoever believes in me will never die."
"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

What do you think about these?
If Jesus was telling the truth, is the only one who can give eternal life, is the only way to the Father, and is one with the Father, then he was an amazing person and it's not surprising he could do amazing things. He said himself that he didn't need anyone's testimony about him, or their approval of what he did. Besides that, his disciples didn't really believe and understand until after the resurrection. Before Jesus's death they were not going round making fantastic claims about him -they didn't know, or believe, who he was. And when Jesus told them that he was the Messiah, he also told them not to tell anyone.

What reason do you have for reading the Gospels and saying, "this is a bunch of over inflated claims and is not true?"

I have never seen any really compelling reason for Jesus to be any more special than them.

If you completely ignore Jesus' claims, just see his miracles as being like those of other religious leaders, and disregard the fact that he was crucified because the Jews believed him guilty of blasphemy, i.e. that he claimed to be God - and ignore the fact that the disciples' lives changed completely after the resurrection and they were willing to be persecuted, flogged and killed for their faith; if you ignore all of that, then maybe you could say that Jesus is on a par with Buddha, or whoever.

So either

A) They all performed miracles and miracles are irrespective of religious faith. In this case, Jesus would be some sort of divine master who was able to somehow perform miracles alongside other similar healers / preachers / masters.
B) They were exaggerations or misrepresentations by followers who venerated them and placed their leader on a pedastal

How many of these other leaders made the claims that Jesus did - claiming to be God and the only way to the Father? How many of these leaders can forgive sin, give peace, security, eternal life, joy and so on?

I have not seen a compelling reason why Jesus was some sort of exception to be set apart from these other examples.

I have read books by people who have read and studied other religions and found them to be interesting, intellectually stimulating, providing a good, moral code - and ultimately, unsatisfying. It seems to me that other religions are about what people have to do to find God - offer the right number, and type, of sacrifices, live a moral life, do enough good deeds and maybe God will favour you/hear your prayer/give you some kind of blessing. Christianity is about how God found us. Other religions say you should make sacrifices to atone for your sin; Christianity says that God sacrificed himself for our sin.

It may be a cliche, but Christianity is a relationship, not a religion; a relationship between mankind and God, made possible by Jesus. How many other religious leaders claim that?

I suggest you read about Swami Sivananda at this website. It is a very lengthy article and it details a whole variety of healings that Sivananda supposedly accomplished. They also discuss Jesus and his healings as well.

Read this article as if it is all true and all happened. What do you think?.

I may do, if I have time.
I don't disbelieve that other people can do miracles. I do have a question about where they got their power - from God, or from the devil. Jesus said that the devil would do miracles to try to deceive even God's people. Centuries before, God did miracles through Moses and Pharaoh's own magicians replicated the same miracles. They didn't believe in God, yet the miracles they performed were the same and just as real. Miracles on their own, prove nothing. Jesus said the things he did, and did miracles.

The greatest miracle was the resurrection. God raised Jesus from the dead, as Paul said to prove that he (Jesus) was who he had claimed to be.
If Jesus had been lying, exaggerating, deluded and blasphemous, God would have left him in the tomb - dead, like everyone else. And we wouldn't have the Christian faith or the Bible at all. No one's lives would have been changed, Paul wouldn't have persecuted anyone and the many many Christian books, songs, poetry, theological tomes etc would simply never have been written.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm curious about this comment, "I seek some form of truth." Why would anyone want to seek some form of truth? Why not just seek truth period, end of story, why would you want some form of truth rather than truth itself? I don't get it, please explain.

I think truth, like God, is fairly ill-defined. I'll grasp at the things which I believe and call them "true".

I think your problem here might be in the "some form of truth" you talk about above....most all religious beliefs, in fact, I am hard pressed to think of any exceptions at the moment, have some form of truth imbedded in them, but some form of truth is in essence the same thing as saying they also have lies. A common example is a cake, we bake a cake and it is full of good ingredients, but what happens if we put a little bit of dog do do in it? Would you still want to eat it?

Not sure if this is a good example because the ingredients of a cake get all mixed together so it is difficult to separate the dog do from the good part of the cake.

With religion, it is easier to walk verse-by-verse, ethic-by-ethic, saying-by-saying, teaching-by-teaching and try to determine which are valuable, true, historical, literal, allegorical, etc, etc, etc. Religions aren't monolithic mixtures like cakes. They are more like parts of a bicycle which can be removed and added.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Hi LRLRLR,

If you do not agree that a prophecy can, repeat can, be validly interpreted allegorically, then there is no point continuing our discussion.

Yes I said it can be, but that does not mean it is the correct interpretation.

 

[ldonjohn]

The problem here is obvious...your focus is only on what you know, and not on what you want to know. If you really want the answers...you will need to change that.

Good point, ScottA. I'm beginning to think he doesn't want to find the truth, but he only wants to argue in favor of his opinions. I suspect leftright fears the truth because he isn't willing to admit his sin and of his need to be forgiven. I hope, before it is too late for him, that he realizes if he continues to ignore/reject God's call that his heart will become hardened to the point that he will indeed will be "left right" out of the provision of God's mercy & grace.

John

 

[Stillicidia]

Hmm to try and blast you with "truth".

Kat Kerr is a modern revelator,
The word respect is used improperly in our society. KJV doesn't say show respect because it cannot be shown,
Love god well off enough and he will dwell in you,
All of Romans 1 happened to me,
Hmm...

If you want to find truth for yourself, then know what the scriptures say, but don't debate it with peoples.
Know what they say, have god in you, all sorts of stuff will happen.

______________________________________

"For you specifically I will suggest you strive for the love of god to dwell in you, and then you will know, maybe.

To do this you need his favor, which is gained by loving him and praising him, and thanking him.
The favor of god is determined by what is in your heart.

If he favors you enough he will dwell in you, and keep away all devils from you naturally.

His love is fairly mutual, if you love him heavily, he will blast you with his love, and that should be your goal friend."

 

[razzelflabben]

I think truth, like God, is fairly ill-defined. I'll grasp at the things which I believe and call them "true".

what then do you do with evidence? If truth is only what you believe, what happens to evidence that would suggest your version of truth is wrong?

Not sure if this is a good example because the ingredients of a cake get all mixed together so it is difficult to separate the dog do from the good part of the cake.

which is part of the point and why it is a good example. Mixing in truth or in this case lies with what is other wise good doesn't make an appetizing dish

With religion, it is easier to walk verse-by-verse, ethic-by-ethic, saying-by-saying, teaching-by-teaching and try to determine which are valuable, true, historical, literal, allegorical, etc, etc, etc. Religions aren't monolithic mixtures like cakes. They are more like parts of a bicycle which can be removed and added.

From my standpoint, if a deity isn't "true" all the time, what is the point? IOW's if only part of the teaching is true, what would make me think that the deity being claimed is a deity at all? Wouldn't a deity if that deity was more than a man made construct be expected to be 100% true 100% of the time? In fact, that is what scripture tells us to look for when it comes to those who claim to be speaking for the God of the Bible. If they are not 100% right 100% of the time, they do not speak for the God of the Bible, only claim to be doing so. Which is exactly what I would expect from a deity that was more than just a figment of man's imagination. I don't know of any other religion that holds that same to be true and yet it is a logical conclusion.

 

[Stillicidia]

I'm an underrated duck.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes I said it can be, but that does not mean it is the correct interpretation.

I am still not sure if we are clear: Are you open to the possibility that that an allegorical interpretation can be the "correct" interpretation - the interpretation the author wants you to make.

You seem to think that I am saying an allegorical interpretation is necessarily the correct interpretation. I believe I have never stated or implied such a thing.