Biblical Translation--Eden

I dont if or when Jaywill will reply but let justsay this. I don disagree with the definiton, only your misaplication and misinterpretation of it.All of the definitions you gave for "religion or religous' have to do with its ideology not its history, you are making them run together.Not a single on of those definitions mentions the word
history, take a closer look.I dont know if Jaywill respond but I just wanted to insert this note again. Ill let you respon to my other post and take a break.Thanks
D BertotEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote box. Opening code had been "{qs".

bertot: Here is the beginning to a reply; opening with my earlier post:

quote:

---

If indeed "Christ" has the answeres, why do you quote most frequently from Paul in regard to church doctrine, and hardly ever from the actual "words" of "the word/Jesus Christ"?People do not know what Jesus Christ's principles are. Jesus himself said that "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" (Luke 12:51). What is it; division or peace? I am confused. love your enemy for if he is not baptized he is damned anyhow? What exactly are we supposed to be following here? Maybe we should just listen to Paul, but, unfortunately, he is a little confusing also.

---

Let’s start with the places in the Gospels where he explains that Adam and Eve caused sin and death to come into His world.
I have not yet be able to find those quotes from Jesus of Nazareth. Let’s look into some of Jesus parables and metaphors. Let’s see just how “simple” his words are. There is the one about the woman with three measures of flower and one pinch of leaven that is like the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:33).One measure of leaven + three measures of meal = 4 ingredients; compare this to the Tetragrammaton = Sacred 4 Consonant Name: y = he/it {leaven} + hwh = becomes/is {three measures of meal} = Kingdom of heaven. Four aspects of yhwh God symbolically represented as “ox, eagle, human, lion”; Four aspects of Hebrew Deity. Not three.
This can be regarded as a start. Furthermore, this formula cannot be found in Greek. What exactly was his message? or, were his messages? “A little simple study?” I have been studying hard for quite a while and I still apparently have many misunderstandings. So, help me out here.
How do we go from “love your enemies . and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he {God} is kind unto the unthankful and the evil” (Luke 6:35) to “there shall be weeping an gnashing of teeth [when the workers of iniquity are thrust out of the kingdom of God] (paraphrase of Luke 13:27/8).Please explain the above to me.

quote:

---

Nature is a consistent "truth." Nature is, and if we learned from "What Is" there would be a great deal less confusion, conflict, pain, and suffering. Prior to children learning from their parents and community who they should hate and who they should kill, those children from varying ethnic backgrounds get along quite well. Persistent conflict and bias religious and secular teachings push people apart. Like Jesus says, he did come to bring peace, he came to bring division. Well, great. Good job. He certainly accomplished that mission.

---

The God of Nature has an entire cosmos remaining in balance. The natural planet earth also has an entire ecological system that must remain in balance within the balance of the cosmos. The God of Nature {figuratively speaking} maintains the balance of the cosmos and planet earth and by doing so allows you and I to have the vast array of experiences that our mortalities have provided us.When we apply “the knowledge of good and bad” {remember the tree/wood/gallows in paradise} to the array of experiences bestowed upon us on planet earth, we end up judging God and God’s creation according to our own subjective {or selfish} senses, needs, and desires. When we judge God and God’s creation, we find ourselves no longer in paradise, but instead we are pained, manic, hungry, and thirsty, and cursing the world that is so harsh and the God who is blind to our suffering.I tried to communicate the above in a way that will point to the initial topic of this thread. I hope I did so without preaching my personal opinion. My opinion is there, but I am trying not to “preach” it. Of course, I disagree. But, I will address the above in another post.All the best,
Ger

bertot, my friend:I need a little break, and I am sure you do also.I'll keep my eyes on the computer.Have a good one,
Ger

[/qs]Let’s start with the places in the Gospels where he explains that Adam and Eve caused sin and death to come into His world.
I have not yet be able to find those quotes from Jesus of Nazareth.[/qs]Let me make this point. I dont know if Jaywill addresed it earlier. When topic is well known to an audience, like that of Jesus day there is no real need to address the obvious. For example if I were discussing the Presidency of this country , with another individual, I would not need to speak about all the requirements of that office, because both of us already know those simple facts, they are obvious to us without discussion. In the same way it would not be necessary for Jesus to speak of a subject that was common knowledge and already agreed upon by those people. I have been asked the question, why did Jesus not adress or condemn homosexuality. Again why would he address a topic that was understood to be wrong by thier standards an abomination to them. See the point.Further Jesus said not one Jot or Tittle would pass from the Law until all was fulfilled. Again the scriture says that he (Christ) began with Moses going through the Prophets and showed them that he was the messiah and that all these things must be fulfilled. Jesus endorsed the canon of the Old testament and appeared to agree with all that moses had to say, including the story of Adam and Eve, and the related subject.You still have not dealt with John 16:13 Were the words of the other writers Christ' words according to John and Jesus? Jesus' message concering the Church/Kingdom in, parables usually has to do with have a the simplicity or uniqness of its properties, or an illustration to christian behavior. The parables of the mustard seed or the sowers convey and idea about growth, great and small faith, or the seed as the Word of God and the ground as a metaphor for types of people. I am not saying that everything is very easy to understand. But the messages he wanted to convey about salvation and living are just to easy to understand or miss. Would you agree.You will have to dumb down the second part of you quote, so I can understand what you are saying. I dont believe even you dont understand what his message and life were about. I will be happy to respond to this if you write back to me and say. Bertot I truely do not understand the contrast between these two statements. Agreed. I cant believe you dont understand them in there contexts. Now apply most of what you said in the above statement about judgeing Gods way of dealing with people in the OT, then you can no longer consider yourself in paradise, but standing in judgment of an infinite God, with unlimited knowledge of things.Agreed?Furthermore this was a very elaborate way of dissmissing the obvious suffering and pain in the real world. Again, I ask, why does he not interven and take care of these problems? Real hings like pain and suffering are not subjective.

bertot: You replied, saying, The reason why the definition of "religion" does not have the word "history" in it is because "religion" {any aspect of religion} does not constitute "history." The definition of Holy Bible is as follows:

quote:

---

Bible: the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.

---

That definition does not mention "history" or "historical" either.So, the definitions of religious, religion, and Holy Bible do not ever mention the word "history" or "historical". And, the definition of "historical" referrs to "real world" events as distingushed from events described as biblical/"religious {pertaining to "religion"} belief."I know that you very much want to regard the Holy Bible as a "historical account", but, unfortunately the English term "historical" rules out regarding the Holy Bible as a "historical Account." The Holy Bible is a book of Judeo-Christian religous belief. The OT and the NT are not considered "historical accounts" of historical Christianity.

quote:

---

Christianity is defined: Christian beliefs or practices.
Christian is defined: of pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

---

Historical is never mentioned.Do you see where this is going?All the best,
Ger

bertot: This is going to be a short reply, Then why did Paul bring Adam up so frequently:

quote:

---

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come (Romans 5:12 & 14) see also 1 Cor. 15:21 & 45-47.

---

I am sorry. How am I supposed to deal with John 16:13? Do I perceive the words spoken in John 16:13 as being the actual words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth?Help me out here, my brain is unable to compute.All the best,
Ger

To AM. Thats the best you got Homespun, to all the things I have said. No, I am just kidding. Ill get to your tripe and complaining in a little while.Your friendD Bertot

To AM

AM writes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------AM you have a very unique and selective way of debating. You remind me of a Calvinist taking only the scripture out of the text that mention the word Faith, and saying that this is all the NT or Bible has to say abouthow one becomes a Christian, for getting it mentions baptism and other things in the process.In the same way you choose specific words to meet your purpose. Of course if we only put in the word Bible it may not mention the word historical or history. If we enter the word Doctrine or Christian doctrine, you will not see the word history either. The same with Faith, belief, morals or anything else of this nature. Your trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Christian or Christianity refers to the beliefs not the actual history. What you are doing here is known as selective reasoning. However, if we were to say Christian history or religous history any thinking person would know what we were speaking of.You cannot view words with seperate meanings and then draw unwarrented conclusions from those different meanings. The words must fit together to form a concept or idea to proceed with. Your are trying to take two different words, with two totally different meanings and trying to make them mean the same thing. It wont work Enough said.D Bertot

Bertot said AM said First let me say I thought you were asking me about Jesus' teaching now we are switching to Paul. Ok then, Jesus was addressing a Jewish audience, that was very familiar with the teachings of the Law. Paul was addressing a Church comprised primariliy of Gentiles. Being new converts to the JUdeo-Christian faith they were asking many questions and were in need of understanding of the basics of the Law and prophets. Much in the same way if I were to miragte to a new country anf then became a citizen of thatcountry. I would need to understand its history and Laws. Understand. Jesus' primary mission was to restore Israel, the lost sheep principle.Paul's mission was to the Gentiles. Much education was necessary.Bertot said AM said When YOU question something about the NT, I assume the answer to come out of the NT. So if your believe it is the words or Christ or not, is irrevelant initially to the point. However, would you consider it a valid explantion atleast on the surface. In other words you asked a question, I provided an answer from that source, now you run back to the reliability question. Really AM lets stay with one thing at a time.D Bertot

Autumnman,You ask: What exactly is the message of Jesus Christ is a profound question to which there may not be only ONE answer. But we can attempt to answer.If you want to simplify down to its most basic and fundemental essence the message of Jesus Christ - I would offer today this passage.I will present the basic message in its longer form first. Then I will present it in its shortest possible form. That's the longer version. Now the short version: Here are my reasons for saying that this passage is the core, the essense, the extract, the bottom line of the teachings of Jesus.1.) Abide in Me - means to get into the realm of Jesus. Get into the sphere of a living Person named Jesus. Live in Him.2.) If we get into Him and live in Him He will get into us and live in us. - Abide in Me and I in you. We live in the realm of His Person and presence and He in turn lives again in the whole arena of our living. He is expressed from within us when we live within Him.3. This implies the eternality of Jesus. Abide in Me is an exhortation for not just three years that Jesus was physically with the twelve disciples. It covers Jesus after the resurrection and throughout all the ages even unto eternity - FOREVER. From now on the human being should get into the living Person of Jesus.4. The message indicates that Jesus is an enterable Person. And it indicates that we also are enterable. One life can live within another. Two lives can be joined as a branch is joined to a vine. The source of life is not the branch. The source is in the vine and flows out to the attached (that is important) branch.Through an "organic" union between the believer and Jesus, the rich life of Jesus can flow into the life of the abiding "branch". We abide in Him and He in turn abides in us.5. By abiding in Him and He in us we can "bear fruit" unto God His Father.This bearing of fruit covers everything done unto God, for God, pleasing to God, and as a part of the eternal purpose of God. We cannot bear fruit apart from the mutual abiding in Christ.We can do a lot of things apart from abiding in Christ. But in the end it will all amount to "nothing". That is it will account for nothing in terms of the will of God. It will be a lot but will be valued as "nothing" for it is done apart from the Son of God. " ... for apart from Me you can do nothing."6. No where in this teaching does Jesus tell us how to become the branch in Himself as the vine. The key to becoming a branch in the vine of Jesus is SEEING that we are in Him already.Seeing that we are in Him as a branch is in the vine is the key to abiding in Him and He in us. Seeing that Jesus is the Vine, the true Vine and we are His branches will cause us to live Christ.Some may make a good point that this could not cover those who are not in Christ, i.e. do not believe in Christ. On one hand I would agree. But on the other hand to get the vision "I am just a branch in Christ. I can do nothing apart from Christ. I must abide in Christ" uttered as a sincere revelation or prayer is probably enough to cause one to begin experience Christ. He is so willing.Apart from Him we have nothing. Apart from Jesus Christ we have nothing for God. And if we do a lot of things apart from Christ on the day of judgement we will realize that it all meant nothing.Separated from Christ, as far as God is concerned, we simply do not have anything.This then today, I would offer as the essence of the message of Jesus.Abide in Jesus and He will abide in you. This covers the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.This covers the Lordship of Jesus.This covers redemption.This covers justification.This covers reconciliation.This covers sanctification.This covers transformation.This covers conformation.This covers building up in true Christian oneness.This covers eternal life.This covers the resurrection of the body and the transfiguration of the body.This covers the glorification of the whole person in eternity.This covers the union and joining of Divinity and humanity.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

bertot: I will respond to each of your posts, one my one, so that we can attempt to come to some kind of accord regarding these subjects.

quote:

---

AM writes
So, the definitions of religious, religion, and Holy Bible do not ever mention the word "history" or "historical". And, the definition of "historical" referrs to "real world" events as distingushed from events described as biblical/"religious {pertaining to "religion"} belief." I know that you very much want to regard the Holy Bible as a "historical account", but, unfortunately the English term "historical" rules out regarding the Holy Bible as a "historical Account." The Holy Bible is a book of Judeo-Christian religous belief. The OT and the NT are not considered "historical accounts" of historical ChristianityChristianity is defined: Christian beliefs or practices.Christian is defined: of pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

---

In as much as computers are relatively new to me, debating is not something I have done a lot of, and therefore, I do not know the “proper” methods of doing so. Hopefully I will become more adept and proficient as we go along. Thank you for your indulgence and patients. At this moment I am doing the level best I can muster. In Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2003 (WUD), the clauses “Christian history” and “religious history” do not exist.The WUD shows “Christian Era {the period since the assumed year of Jesus’ birth), Christianism {the beliefs and practices of Christians), and then Christianity”. “Christian history” is not provide.The WUD shows “religious house {a convent or monastery), to religious Society of Friends {see Society of Friends). “Religious history” is not provided.The WUD shows historical geology and historical linguistics, and then historical present, historical school, but does not show historical Christianity or historical religion.The English language draws a clear distinction between “Christianity and religion” and “historical - documented, authentic, factual, attested - events of history.” Even under the word “church” there is churchgoer, to churchinvisible {the entire body of Christian believers on earth and in heaven). There is no such thing as “church history; the history of the Church is found in “historical documents” not “The Holy Bible.” The Holy Bible in NOT regarded as a “historical document.”This is how the English language appears works. Those words, however, must be provided their actual English meanings. The terms “religious” and “historical” are antithetical concepts. I am doing nothing of the sort. But, according to the WUD, you are connecting words with antithetical meanings, and claiming that somehow they actually mean something. The English Language does not support your point of view.All the best,
Ger

AM WritesI did not say that they did. Your earlier contention was that the words Religous, Religion, Christianity, etc did not contain or convey the idea of history or the word in there definition.. But then niether do Judaism, Muslin or G. Washington.. In otherwords when you look these words up in the dictionary, the word history or historical does not appear in the definition, for two reasons, that is not the definition of the the word and the writer assumes that you know that they are a part of history without it being mentioned. My response was that these words have different meanings sepreratly. And that you were trying to draw an unwarrented conclusion from these definitons.Let me use a somewhat simple illustrationn, to make this point. Two words SHOE and HORN. When you enter the words Shoe horn in the dictionary, it says, "there are no entries found".Now if we look these words up in the dictionary seperatly have very definate but distinct and different meanings. Now I could say a shoe Horn does not exist because each of the definitons in the dictionary do not mention eachother. But there is a thing called a Shoe Horn. But according to your logic and methods of prooceeding we must deny its existence dut to the fact that the dictionary gives seperate meanings to these words. Words or a combination of words form an idea, irregardless of the fact, that it may or not be mentioned in the dictionary. It is simply ludicrous to maintain that there is no HISTORY of the Church because the dictionary does or does not mention it specifically. You have mentioned the Council of Nicaea, numerous times in this thread. Question, were these real people at a real place, at a certain time? Did they really exsit? Did the inquisition and crusades really happen or not?I do not need to see the word history or historical in the definition to know they are history. Ofcourse it draws a clear distinction between two distinct definitons, I have never diagreed with this point. The history of the Church is most certainly found in the Bible and can be cooborated by both written documents and physical evidence as I have demonstrated in earlier posts. Only misaplication and bias would disregard Luke and the Gospel writers as UNRELIABLE, until they have been demonstrated as such. You attack words and meanin of words as a defense to show thier authenticity and unreliability, not the sources themselves, this shows something of the weakness of your position. Attack the documents themselves. Get itI might also mention, as I forgot to earlier, that the definition of historical in Websters, unwarrentdly attaches the mention of a theologians search for Jesus Christ. This is added as a illustration that can be demonstrated to be false by historical documents. Wrong again. the word antithetical means "directly opposed or contrated opposites". This would only be true if the words were in direct oppositon to each other. They are not hey simply have different meanings, not in opposition to each other. Keep trying though. Chritianity and historical have two deferent meanings and when placed together form a very COGNITIVE and FUNCTIONAL idea, wheather or not you believe that history actually took place. Like Gas-Tank, Shoe-Horn, etc, etc, etcThanks againD Bertot

to AM My mistake on the shoehorn thing I typed it in wrong. But you get the idea that two different words placed together can form a cognative idea, even though the words have different and NOT opposite or contradictory meanings. Directly below each oF the deinitons there are titles of resources, that carry or bear the names Arab history, Christian History, etc, indicating that these are valid concepts and cognative ways of naming things. Showing that the words fit tigether to show a valid, actual reality.D Bertot

Bertot said: The post-Exilic period of the Jews - 538 BCE to 1 AD (which includes the Persian Empire falling to Alexander The Great {Greece), and Grecian Empire falling to Rome) was not a time when the Jewish people possessed or knew much about their pre-Exilic past. The Temple had been utterly destroyed when Babylon conquered Judea, and the pre-Exilic literary language, texts, and history of the Jews was virtually destroyed along with the First Temple. Some ancient Scriptures survived, but most were not in the hands of the Jewish people, they were in the hands of those who had destroyed the First Temple. Thus, Sheshbazzare receiving the “Temple vessels” from the Persian treasury on behalf of the Jewish community signifies the return of the “vessels - precious things” belonging to the house of God.”
Nehemiah 13:24 states, “And they do not understand the words of the Jewish language, but speak the language of foreign people.”The “topic” of which we speak - Adam & Eve - was not well known to the Jewish people at the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the Jewish religious sects of that time were not awaiting a “begotten” son of God, they were hoping for a divinely anointed messianic, Davidic King who would forcibly remove the foreign invaders from all Palestine and Judea. Jesus of Nazareth was not the “Davidic King” they were waiting for. That is probably why the majority of Jews today do not accept Jesus of Nazareth as their messianic savior.AM said

quote:

---

Then why did Paul bring Adam up so frequently:

---

I do not agree, but I am sure we will get back to the above subject.Bertot said AM said:

quote:

---

I am sorry. How am I supposed to deal with John 16:13? Do I perceive the words spoken in John 16:13 as being the actual words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth? Help me out here, my brain is unable to compute.

---

bertot said: I am trying to stay with “one thing at a time”, but it is difficult because they are all woven together.
That should be enough for now.All the best,
Ger