Dan56

Member
  • Posts

    3,724
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dan56

Helpful Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Illinois

Friendly Details

  • Doctrine /Affiliation
    Christian

Other Details

  • Occupation
    self-employed

Recent Profile Visitors

5,305 profile views

Dan56's Achievements

Priceless Being

Priceless Being (14/17)

  1. Didn't know you were from Queens.. Same as Jonathan.. Seems like a very diverse place with Rabbi's, Agnostic's, and Cyndi Lauper
  2. Since what is right to one person could be considered wrong to another person, I doubt that doing only that which is right is an achievable objective. But even though we all inevitably screw-up more than we succeed, trying to do the right thing is an honorable goal. To Christians, there is but one who did everything right.
  3. Just to say that I'm still alive too... 67 now, older but not wiser .. Been trying to turn over a new leaf though!
  4. Well, show me a verse in the bible that condones witchcraft and I'll agree with you.
  5. To me, the following verses are the answer (Mark 9:2-9). Jesus took 3 of them and they saw Jesus transfigured, were shown Elias with Moses, and heard the Father. That was heavenly beings coming to earth, so they did see a powerful portion of heaven.
  6. In retrospect, perhaps none of us 'find' morals, but rather have morality instilled in us.. I believe His Holy Spirit permeates the earth, and everyone has an unction from the Holy Spirit, which provides a sense of right from wrong. That is not to say that His Spirit dwells with everyone, but that morals are transcendent, leaving us all without excuse. If you never cracked open a bible or your parents never taught you that murder, theft, adultery, or lying was wrong, I still believe that we would all inherently know that these things were wrong. Morals aren't taught or learned as much as the knowledge of good and evil is automatic. Refusing to adhere to basic morals leaves many with a seared conscience, but it doesn't detract from the fact that they aren't ignorant of good from evil.
  7. Yes, but neither Paul or Jesus abolished the commandments. Jesus fulfilled many of the ceremonial and sacrificial ordinances and statutes put in place to govern the Israelites making them obsolete , but said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). What changed was that the penalty for breaking the law was "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), we are now justified through grace by faith, that's the essence of the new covenant. Paul taught that "all have sinned" and that "the wages of sin is death", but even though Christ paid for our debts on Calvary, he never denounced the 10 commandments, i.e; Its still not okay to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31). So I respectfully disagree with you and Coolhand, because I believe the commandments are still relevant. The curse (penalty) of the law was blotted-out for believers, but the commandments remain intact. To me, the new age thinking that green lights sin is a dangerous proposition, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21).
  8. I don't believe Jesus 'abolished' the 10 commandments. He kinda summarized the first 4 with the greatest commandment, to love the Lord with all your heart. And the second greatest commandment covered the rest with "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-40). What Jesus did do is remove the curse of the law, blotting out the transgressions of the repentant. But its as wrong today as it was thousands of years ago to break the commandments.
  9. I personally don't think Jesus was speaking of scientific achievements that would advance mankind. I suspect he was referring to the collective works of the apostles and future believers. Not 'greater' in substance, but cumulatively, the number of miracles and the amount of believers would be increased. Jesus preached to Israel, but now we've seen the 'greater works' worldwide.. Greater in quantity, not quality.. jmo
  10. I ain't mad, nor do I want anything from you. Most Christians agree on the meaning of that parable, its nothing complicated. There's no spin, in Matthew 21 Jesus simply told his disciples to learn the Parable of the Fig Tree, but a reader must go to Luke 13: 6-9 to find the parable in order to learn it. You can't understand the prophecy without knowing what the parable represented. It had nothing to do with actual trees or fruit, but the spiritual implications of the Pharisees and Jews who bore no fruit. The condemnation was not the tree, but directed towards the people who persecuted, rejected, and killed their Messiah. You've often quoted Matthew 7: 19-20, which is more less emphasizing the same thing, "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them". Jesus got to know the naysayers and hypocrites, who all withered away just like that symbolic fig tree, along with the temple. city, and nation... Just put it on a shelf if you don't get it, I just thought I'd try to explain it.
  11. In retrospect, I'm confident that my preceding post will go right over your head. Your intent has never been towards advancing biblical understanding, but to simply ridicule and condemn what you've rejected from the onset. You don't get it because the message was spiritual, the fig tree didn't bear fruit because it was "out of season", so it (Israel) would be a nation (mountain) cast into the sea (sea representing the gentile people of the world). And it would remain so until the end times, which would be marked by the fig tree (Israel) being re-established. The narrative wasn't the fig tree itself, it was used metaphorically. When Jesus figuratively condemned the tree he was literally condemning Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple. The parable was preceded by his words: "Except ye repent ye shall likewise perish". The owner of the vineyard is the God of Israel (Isa 5:7). The dresser is the Messiah (3 years). Cursing the fig tree was simply demonstrating the parable, but the reality of the lesson wasn't cutting down a fruitless tree, but cutting loose a nation that didn't bear spiritual fruit.
  12. What happened in Matthew 21 was not the parable itself, but an illustration of the parable that Jesus instructed them to learn. The parable itself is found in Luke 13:6-9; "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down'. The symbology of the parable is that the fig tree is representative of Israel, and Christ represented the vineyard owner who found no fruit in Israel for 3 years of his ministry. When Jesus cursed the fig tree, he was teaching that the parable would be brought to fruition. He was encouraging his disciples to connect the dots. "This mountain" is referencing the Mount of Olives, on which they were standing, and Moriah of which the temple stood. "Be thou removed" was fulfilled when the temple was destroyed. Mountain and sea are hyperbole, Mountains can represent nations and "sea" represents multitudes of people. The inhabitants of Israel (mountain) were thrown in the sea, in the sense that they were scattered among the multitudes in many nations. “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children" (Luke 23:28)
  13. I never meant to imply that you weren't capable of exercising good morals. Of course commonsense (logic) can dictate good morals. Slaves were generally prisoners of war, enemies who sought to kill/murder Israelis. Today we imprison enemies of the state forever, but they didn't waste money building prisons back then, they enslave them forever instead. Different times, different solutions. But indentured servitude was a time restricted contract, not forever.