• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dan56

  1. On 4/10/2022 at 3:10 PM, Coolhand said:



    The Horizon Bible College (Calvary Chapel) that I went to, taught us that regarding this verse we need to resolve within ourselves how we are going to explain this verse. The professor's position was that the "Kingdom of God" is talking about the millenial reign of Christ and since that did not occur during thier lifetime it could undermine the authority of Scripture.


    What say you?


    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.

  2. On 3/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, Key said:

    Dan, when you seriously contemplate it, you are saying your morals' foundation is actually based outside of yourself. You base it on Scripture written by other people that gave basis to an organized religion. Basically, from what someone else told you. No different than how you think atheist find their morals. it seems.



    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.     

  3. On 3/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, Key said:

    Dan, when you seriously contemplate it, you are saying your morals' foundation is actually based outside of yourself. You base it on Scripture written by other people that gave basis to an organized religion. Basically, from what someone else told you. No different than how you think atheist find their morals. it seems.



    I reckon that's true.


    2 hours ago, RabbiO said:

    Flipping through the thread I did not see anyone note the irony that both Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock were played by proud Jews. Also, Walter Koenig ,who played Chekov, is a Jew.


    Never knew that until now.

  4. 16 hours ago, Yosef said:


    Do you believe the bible is Inerrant? If so, you must believe the words of Paul and therefore accept the laws were abolished.


    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).

  5. On 3/18/2022 at 10:03 AM, Yosef said:

    Do you still follow the 10 commandments of Moses even though our lord has abolished them?


    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. 

  6. 17 hours ago, Yosef said:

    "Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father." John 14:12 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)


    While I am not a great believer in the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Luke, I still see value in this verse. Whenever I read this verse, I can not help but think of the many great works human kind has achieved. Mankind has developed cures for many diseases, built automobiles for faster transportation, and cellular communication for immediate long distance communication. What do you, my brothers and sisters, see when you read this verse?


    With love,


    Brother Yosef


    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 

  7. 2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:


    You sent me to Matt 19:  I read it.  Now you're mad because I don't see your spin.


    What I am seeing is why there are so many divisions within Christianity.  Christians can't agree on this stuff.  What do you want from me?


    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.     

  8. 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. 

  9. 7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:


    I went back and read Matt 21:19.

    1.  Jesus cursed the fig tree to death.

    2.  He did this in front of his disciples.

    3.  His disciples marveled at how quickly the tree died.

    4.  In verse 21, Jesus explains to his disciples that this is a an example of spiritual power.  He goes on to explain that this is nothing.  That they can make a mountain jump into the sea.


    What the bleep is wrong with you?  Didn't you think that I would pick up a Bible and check?


    This is no parable.  It's straight out narrative.


    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) 

  10. 3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

    Our foundation outside of ourselves is the process of logic.  We're capable of reasoning out good morals and differentiating from bad ones, such as keeping slaves forever if they have kids with the spouse we provided 


    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.     

  11. 7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:



    Where does the text state that it's a parable instead of a narrative?



    “And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” (Matthew 21:19).


    Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:” (Matthew 21:32). This is alluding to the nation, which would wither away. But Israel would be reunited (1948) Jerusalem (1967). The fig tree representing that rebirth, which would signify the end times, "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors" (Verse 33). 


    It was the old testament prophecy that Jesus was expounding upon, which describes the scattering of Israel (evil figs) “And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.” ( Jeremiah 24:9). But towards the end times, “For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up.” (Jeremiah 24:6)



  12. 22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:


    Please Dan.  No more bovine flatulence.  I read the book for myself.




    I'm aware of that, but if you think that passage was describing an erratic episode of Jesus losing his temper over a fig tree not yielding fruit, your not reading with any degree of understanding. You have a habit of mocking what you don't comprehend.


    16 hours ago, Key said:

    That is a glaring contradiction, Dan. If there are morals, there is a foundation. But, again, since you are not anything other than Christian, you simply can not understand their beliefs, or lack, that govern them.


    No contradiction, everyone has morals to some degree, but believers have a foundation outside of themselves..  Is the death penalty wrong? Is homosexuality right? My answers would be rooted in what I believe, and not necessarily in what I personally think or my own moral standards. You no doubt would agree that murder is wrong, but that morality emanates from within your own judgement or what the government tells you. An atheist  morals are not based on any foundation of truth outside of themselves.

  13. 5 hours ago, Key said:

    You're kidding, right? Knowledge of right and wrong, AKA morals, is not exclusive to what one's belief system is based on.

    Atheist, that I know of, reject Christ only as a deity. They see value in his teachings, but see no proof of his divinity. 

    Jesus did not set out to start a religion. So while His teachings continue, the religion He did not establish may die, even as the religion He did believe in while alive continues, (Judaism).


    Correct, I never meant to imply that morals were exclusive to a person with beliefs, only that atheist don't have a foundation of which they base their morals on.


    5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:


    By my reading of the Gospels, Jesus had his flaws as a man.


    Consider the story of the fig tree.  It was out of season to bear fruit, so Jesus killed it because he was hungry and in a bad mood.


    Dude had a temper.  If this is how he treats a tree, how is he going to treat an actual opponent?  So much for - "Love your enemies."



    That was no flaw, but a prophecy. The fig tree is symbolic of Jerusalem.


    The time had come for God’s people to yield fruit that would bless the world (Isa. 27:6). Several times the prophets describe God as inspecting Israel for “early figs,” as a sign of spiritual fruitfulness (Mic. 7:1; Jer. 8:13; Hos. 9:10–17), but he finds “no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.” So in two exiles (Assyrian and Babylonian), God pours out the curse of barrenness (Hos. 9:16), and Israel becomes a rotten fig (Jer. 29:17).


    After rejecting and killing Messiah, Israel became a withered nation that disappeared. But another prophecy states that after the time of the fulfillment of the gentiles, Israel would be reoccupied at the end times.


  14. 11 hours ago, Key said:

    I happened to be rereading this thread, then a thought occurred to me. You are not an atheist, Dan. You can not know what their values and morals are based on. Nor can you truly state with any fact that those can fluctuate on a whim.

    Then, as a bonus, you believe you have a solid foundation for those because "truth eludes nonbelievers"? Christians do not have the market of truth cornered, I must tell you.


    As for the rest, they weren't looking for answers from a fictional Star Trek episode. They were discussing the points of the person who sought to do so in the video by using his own bias.


    Btw, thanks to the new Republicans with Trump and evangelist supporters, folks are leaving Christian churches in droves. So, at least as organizational congregations, it is indeed showing sign of dying out.


    So, what does an atheist base their morals on? That was my point, and not that I know what their morals may or may not be. 


    I believe Christ was the Truth, because he said so.. An atheist rejects the Truth (Christ).


    Christianity has been going strong for 2000 years, it will never die-out. "Heaven (sky) and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" Luke 21:33).

  15. 1 hour ago, Alistair said:


    This is an incredibly close-minded statement on a forum that does not assign itself to a religion and promotes diversity. I'll have you know that many of my Hispanic Catholic ancestors implemented their indigenous religion into Catholicism and many of the women in my family line are "White Witches". We are talking about a religion were God flooded the world to mountain peaks and where Yeshua raised from the dead. Just go off to reddit instead of calling people's beliefs invalid. 


    Your belief is your belief, no one can invalidate that. I'm not Catholic or a witch, but its fine with me if it works for you and its your choice to mesh the two. My only point was that the 2 are contrary to each other, and I think if your consult a Catholic Priest, he would confirm it. Better yet, point me to a verse in the bible that condones witchcraft? "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee" (Deuteronomy 18: 10-12). This is why I doubt you'll find a Priest who will baptize a witch.. But good luck.

  16. 1 hour ago, RabbiO said:

    I don’t mean to open a dormant thread, but what exactly is being argued?


    Good question :)....  I think there's confusion over what being Jewish is? If a Jew is a Christian, are they still a Jew? To me a Jew is a Jew, no matter what they believe, e.g; Jonathan is Jewish..

    Doesn't being a Jew just mean that your of Jewish ancestry? Like being a Benjamite just means that your from a different tribe? Judaism was the common Hebrew Abrahamic religion among the 12 tribes, so a person can't be Jewish if they haven't descended from Judah. A Jew can be a Christian and remain Jewish, but a gentile converting to Judaism doesn't make them a Jew. Actually, I believe Jonathan once wrote that he descended from the tribe of Levi, which would make him a Levite and not a Jew? Now-a-days its all the same, a common belief shared by the 12 sons of Jacob (Israel).